such as the factor ranking-benchmark system for this category could be used to establish the basic pay relationships. Adjustments in pay could be made, as required, for special recruitment, occupational practice, and environmental situations.

For positions evaluated under the general APTES category, without special pay adjustments, there is no reason why the pay rates should be different in dollar amounts, in this overlapping area, from those of executives. There could well be advantages in emphasizing the equivalence in evaluation and thus in pay of higherlevel employees, some of whom have chosen to rise in the administrative-managerial functions to executive ranks, and some who become recognized experts in professional or equivalent occupational fields. This dual-ladder concept is well recognized and accepted in the private sector.

D. Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician Pay Schedules

Task Force studies indicate that private industry generally utilizes separate evaluation and pay systems for exempt and nonexempt positions. The private sector pay systems for blue-collar, office clerical, and technician positions are most frequently prevailing rate, locality-based pay schedules. On the other hand, the Federal Government compensates its office clerical and technician positions on the basis of nationwide rates.

Thus, in some areas Federal pay for office clerical and technician occupations is higher than average industry pay; in other areas the reverse is true. The competitive position of the Federal Government in paying its employees is ambivalent and inconsistent.

2.

3.

Relationship to Coordinated Federal Wage System

Establishment of the Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS) put into effect a single system of job evaluation and uniform pay policies covering wage board positions in all departments and agencies. Wages for such positions have traditionally been set on the basis of rates found in private establishments for work of like difficulty in the locality of employment.

Adoption of the locality approach for wage board jobs would enable the Federal Government to compete equitably in the immediate employment market, since employees for such types or positions are normally recruited in the local labor market.

In general, the same conditions apply in meeting the recruitment requirements for clerical, office machine operation, and technician positions. Accordingly, it would appear desirable to consider utilizing the same policy of setting pay on a locality basis for this segment of Federal Government employment.

Relationship to Evaluation System

A prime consideration in determining compensation for clerical-, office machine operation-, and technician-type positions is how closely evaluation of such positions in Government produce the same general relationship as do the pay relationships found

as reflected in pay, generally follow similar patterns in the private sector regardless of locality; and (2) private sector pay rates for the same job may vary as much as 40 percent among localities.

The Congress, in the Salary Reform Act of 1962, established the policy of setting, for Government "white-collar" jobs, salaries comparable to those in private industry. However, to achieve comparability in a true sense the evaluation system should provide grade relationships that correlate with rate relationships. The current classificatic standards for positions in the Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician occupations do not produce a relationship that correlates with industrial rate patterns. The new approach to evaluation of such positions, outlined in APPENDIX VII of this report, would change the evaluation relationships to bring them into a better correlation with industrial rate averages.

E. Coordinated Federal Wage System Schedules

1.

2.

Relationship to Private Sector

Pay schedules under the Coordinated Federal Wage System are locality-based, prevailing rate, step schedules. Wage rates for non supervisory schedules reflect the general level of rates paid by private employers in the same wage area for kinds and levels of work performed in the Federal service. Wage rates for leader and supervisory schedules are derived from the rates of regular nonsupervisory schedules by means of established formulas which provide differentials above the rates of workers led or supervised and which are reasonably in line with those in private industry.

Thus, there are three types of pay schedules, varying in rates from area to area in accordance with the differences in levels of private sector rates in the respective localities. To the extent that step structures characterize the pay schedules, average Federal rates may, or may not, match average locality rates because of the effects of seniority.

Relationship to Evaluation System

The Coordinated Federal Wage System job evaluation system requires that the relative worth of positions be stated in terms of grades or grade levels. Accordingly, the pay schedules show rates for grades, or levels, and not for positions such as plumbers, carpenters, or machinists.

Naturally, the pay rates for the higher grade levels are higher than the pay rates for the lower levels, so that positions classified in the higher grade levels receive more pay than positions in the lower grade levels. Continuation of this approach is recommended by the Task Force.

1.

F. Special Occupations Pay Schedules

Relationship to Evaluation Systems

The evaluation approach discussed in APPENDIX VII for special categories of employees within the broad category of administrative, professional and technological employees

2.

3.

will require, if installed, a variety of pay schedules. These pay schedules will be needed to provide direct relationship between the evaluation techniques and the competitive salaries for like positions in the private sector. Since the primary purpose of this evaluation approach is to place the Federal Government in a more favorable position in terms of recruitment and retention of employees in these special categories, the pay relationship is critical to the total concept.

Enumeration of Special Category Pay Schedules within APTES

At a minimum, it appears at this point that the following special category pay structures will be needed:

a.

b.

C.

d.

In the Health Services field, the pay structures for the doctors, dentists, nurses, and other specialized professions, would each be geared to studies of like positions in the private sector. The pay structures for support positions to these specialized professional jobs would be the same as those used for the COMOT and APTES employees indicated in earlier portions of this section. This means that in the Health Services field some of the employees will be on locality schedules in order to achieve, as closely as possible, comparability with the private sector.

It is envisioned that one pay structure could be developed for the various skill levels of attorneys that would result from the application of the special evaluation approach. This pay sturcture would be linked to private sector salary data.

A basic Federal pay schedule for the teaching profession would be developed that would be nationally competitive. This could then be used both domestically and overseas. The overseas personnel would continue to be the recipients of additional allowances and differentials for working in areas outside the continental limits of the United States. An educational administrative structure linked to the teacher pay structure, as well as to the national APTES structure, would be needed.

For the Foreign Service personnel within the Department of State, U. S. Information
Agency, Agency for International Development, and Peace Corps, it is believed
three basic structures are needed. One schedule would cover professional Foreign
Service personnel, and would be based on nationwide salary data. Another schedule
would cover the clerical support personnel, both domestic and overseas. This
latter pay structure could be determined to be the Washington, D. C., COMOT
locality structure. For employees on this structure assigned to Foreign Service
duty, overseas allowance and differentials would be added. For the Foreign
Affairs Specialist category which the Department of State is establishing, a basic
pay structure that would coincide exactly with the APTES pay structure would be
appropriate.

By providing both national and local relationships with pay structures for the other evaluation systems enumerated in APPENDIX VII, the broad concepts of both equal pay for equal work and comparability would be achieved.

Special Category Pay Schedule within COMOT

Within the COMOT category, those positions concerned with protective services also lend themselves to rank-in-man/rank-in-job evaluation. From a pay standpoint, relationship would have to be developed, on a regional or local basis, with COMOT schedules.

219

Using the framework of evaluation systems described in APPENDIX VII of this report, the Task Force will, during the next year, complete its development of an evaluation model for each of the five categories of employees to be covered in the coordinated job evaluation plan. Built into these models will be a relationship so that the evaluation results under any one of the individual systems can be cross-identified with the other systems. This will show the evaluation changes that result as positions of increasing responsibility within occupational career ladders are identified. While any one of the five systems, in theory, could be used to evaluate any position within the five broad categories, the most accurate results would be obtained by the evaluation system designed for the particular category. Finally, one or more methods for the evaluation of supervisory and managerial jobs below the career executive level has to be developed and related to each of the evaluation models.

Prior to submitting the evaluation models in the final report, it is expected that actual field tests will be conducted to determine the validity of the evaluation systems. These field tests will be done in conjunction with staff of selected agencies. It is hoped that the field tests and the validation studies will reveal weaknesses, if such exist.

The field test results referred to above should indicate areas where modifications of the evaluation models are needed. Any such changes once made, therefore, will require retesting and revalidation. At the conclusion of this phase of the job, the evaluation models can be assumed to meet the criteria established by the Task Force and would be ready for the final step, namely, that of securing concurrence from using organizations.

As each of the evaluation systems are field tested, validated, modified, and revalidated, the systems would be submitted to the Interagency Advisory Group and to interested employee organizations and associations for review and comment. All effort would be made to secure as much acceptance of an concurrence in these evaluation techniques as possible. The Commission would then be in the position, in submitting this coordinated job evaluation plan, to report to the Congress the degree of acceptance obtained. This would simplify the transition plan once the total program had been enacted into legislation. The Civil Service Commission would, of course, assume the full responsibility for a transition from the existing systems to those encompassed in the coordinated job evaluation plan.

A careful review and analysis has been made during this first year of the legislative exceptions to the General Schedule. The final report, therefore, should address itself to the exceptions that should be authorized under the proposed legislation. Every effort would be made to keep the number of exceptions to the coordinated job evaluation plan to an absolute minimum.

1.

General Review

B. Pay Structures as Related to Evaluation Systems

In developing the evaluation systems, the Task Force has been considering the impact and effect that the evaluation systems would have on the statutory pay structures. It is evident not only from the Subcommittee Report but from the many comments, both written and oral, made by individuals who appeared before the Subcommittee and at the public hearings, that there is deep concern over the inequities existing among the various pay systems. It is believed by the Task Force that while it is possible to develop an evaluation system or systems with total disregard to the pay implications, this is neither practical nor the intent of the Congress. The Task Force has not presumed to make detailed reviews of all of the Federal pay systems. However, the interface problems have been constantly confronted. It is expected, as described in SECTION III, that some significant revisions in pay philosophy and policy will be required. The locality vs. national pay policy is one example. Other examples are the pay relationships that exist with the establishment of special occupational evaluation systems, such as health services employees, attorneys, teachers, guards, and fire fighters; and the interface between the pay structures for the Coordinated Federal Wage System and those employees in the clerical support occupations. Finally, in developing the model for the Executive Evaluation System, pay problems arising because of the relationship with the Federal Executive Schedule will have to be reviewed.

In the year ahead, the Task Force will continue to review the implications arising from the consolidation of the many evaluation systems into five broad categories described in APPENDIX VII, and the pay structures presently administered under the three-score systems in effect today. In an effort to achieve both the general concept of equal pay for equal work and comparability with the private sector, the Task Force will endeavor to make recommendations for pay structure changes to meet these goals.

The Task Force recommendations on pay as related to evaluation systems will, of course, require the thorough review and consideration of the Civil Service Commission, just as will the evaluation systems recommendations themselves. The Task Force will be seeking the views of its Advisory Committees and the Interagency Advisory Group. The final recommendations of the Civil Service Commission will be forwarded to the President through the Office of Management and Budget, in accordance with standard practice, as part of the final report and proposed legislation. Many of these recommendations will require additional developmental work if the legislation proposed is acted upon favorably.