The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Fred J. O'Dwyer, president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, and he is accompanied by Mr. Don Ledbetter, secretary, and Mr. Dan Jaspan, legislative representative.

STATEMENT OF FRED J. O'DWYER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS; ACCOMPANIED BY DON LEDBETTER, SECRETARY; AND DAN JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. O'DWYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Fred J. O'Dwyer, president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, an association composed of approximately 26,000 supervisors in the postal field service, including supervisors in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. I am accompanied by Daniel Jaspan, legislative representative, and Donald N. Ledbetter, national secretary. We appreciate the interest of the administration and members of this committee who have introduced bills to carry out the principle of comparability as enunciated in Public Law 87-793.

H.R. 7552, introduced by Congressman Udall, and the many identical bills, maintain comparability at all levels. However, previous testimony indicates that the schedules proposed in the so-called administration bill are based on the latest figures of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Naturally we would benefit more if the figures were up to date. We are concerned with the timelag and the fact that the statistics on which the salary schedule is based reflect data gathered early in 1961. Although we would prefer a salary chart reflecting the current comparability figures, we recognize that_the intent of Congress in the enactment was to adjust salaries based on actual studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The salary levels in H.R. 7797, H.R. 7803, and H.R. 7814, introduced by Congressmen Olsen, Wallhauser, and Morrison, respectively; as well as additional bills introduced later, contain salary tables that are attractive to our members in the lower supervisory levels.

We hope this committee will consider bills that do not discriminate against any group of postal employees. These bills propose to adjust salary levels through level 10, based on an estimation of the increase in the cost index since the Bureau of Labor studies. If it be the intent of Congress to adjust salaries on this basis, then, in equity, the estimated cost factor should be applied to all levels in the postal field service.

We cannot endorse H.R. 7797, H.R. 7803, and H.R. 7814 in their present form. We could only do so if comparability were extended to all levels. The basic policy of the 1962 act requires that:

Federal salary fixing shall be based upon the principles that:

A. There shall be equal pay for substantially equal work, and pay distinctions shall be maintained in keeping with work and performance distinctions; and B. Federal salary rates shall be comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work.

It is our understanding the salary adjustment that the President has recommended for January 1964 conforms with the policy prescribed by law. H.R. 7552 maintains the principles and the intent of Congress in the enactment of Public Law 87-793. Therefore, we

endorse and advocate the enactment of this or a similar bill. We do so on the premise that it will have the endorsement of the administration and the possibility that salary adjustments will not be jeopardized in this session of Congress. Moreover, we feel a sense of security in the statements made by administration representatives that the timelag will be narrowed and subsequent adjustments will be effected on current statistics.

I would like to refer you to appendix A at the end of this statement, which indicates that the comparability principle would be destroyed by the enactment of the bills other than H.R. 7552 and similar bills in their present form.

APPENDIX A

COMPARABILITY PRINCIPLE DESTROYED

When the administration spokesmen testified before the enactment of Public Law 87-793, they all stressed the fact that the salaries in the higher levels fell far behind salaries in industry for similar positions. Due to a necessary ceiling at that time, proposed salaries in the upper levels were reduced. The administration witnesses again pointed out the lack of comparability at the higher levels this year. The proposed salary schedule in the Olsen, Wallhauser, Morrison, and Dulski bills would further distort the salary levels in comparison with H.R. 7552 and similar bills. The following table shows how the principle of comparability would be lost by the enactment of the other bills in their present form:

NOTE.-Level 17 is the top supervisory position.

Mr. HENDERSON. Before the gentleman completes his statement, I would like to say, at this point, that the gentleman has rendered a very fine service to this committee by submitting this statement.

EXECUTIVE PAY

Mr. O'DWYER. We also fully support the comparability principle in so-called executive pay brackets. The last adjustment was in 1956, under the provisions of Public Law 84-854. The last salary increase for members of Congress was under Public Law 84-9 in 1955. Those salaries were equitable then, and they were fully justified. The time is now ripe for an upward revision. Testimony by administration witnesses point out that salaries paid in many States and municipalities now exceed most salaries in the Federal service, and often by substantial amounts. Salaries of Federal executives, Members of Congress, and the judiciary should be increased in amounts to bring about comparability.

The resignation of J. Edward Day, an outstanding Postmaster General, was based primarily on the fact that he could no longer afford

23-242-63— -10

to stay in Government service at the salary paid. This graphically illustrates the need for an upward revision in the salary scale. We hope that this session of the 88th Congress will not hesitate to act, although we know that there is a reluctance on the part of some Members to increase their own salaries. We firmly believe that the Members of Congress and other Federal executives do not receive salaries commensurate with their duties and responsibilities which are increasing from day to day.

We would feel this way even if the relatively low salaries paid to people in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government did not impose a barrier against increases in the top levels for other Federal employees. An increase in the salaries in these three branches however is necessary for the principle of comparability to be fully carried out in any salary schedule proposed.

We recognize that there may be a reluctance on the part of Congress to increase their own salaries. Some no doubt have received adverse reactions from their constituents. It is our impression, however, that the vast majority of the American people will endorse the principle of comparability and will enthusiastically endorse this principle. We urge this committee to act favorably on the executive pay measure.

The keynote in the legislation under consideration is, of course, comparability. Now would be an excellent time to adjust several phases to eliminate inequities that have inadvertently crept into existing laws and to establish true comparability in all phases of application. In this connection, we offer the following items for consideration in the final draft of the proposed legislation. We sug gest that first an additional step be added to level 7.

WHY AN ADDITIONAL STEP?

It is our opinion that there is a glaring inequity in the present and proposed salary scale for level 7. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 87-793, there was a salary differential of $455 between the top steps of levels 6 and 7. Under the first phase of Public Law 87-793, this differential was reduced to only $215. Under the second phase, the $215 differential would be maintained. Under the provisions of H.R. 7552, this differential would only be increased to $220.

To show the inequity of this small differential, let us examine the differences between the steps at various levels.

Chart showing salary differentials in various levels and grades

No matter how this chart is examined, the obvious error and inequity in the salary schedule is the differential between the top steps of levels 6 and 7 in the PFS schedule. Although there is a differential of only

$220 between these two steps under the PFS schedule, the differential under the general schedule is $765. There is no other level or grade under either schedule where there is such a small differential. The importance of this inequity should not be minimized since level 7 in the postal field service is usually the salary of the first-line supervisor. When bills were introduced during the 87th Congress, embodying the administration's "salary reform" there were 13 steps in levels 1 through 6, 11 steps in level 7, and 10 steps through level 18. By the time the bill was enacted into law, the first 6 levels were reduced to 12 steps and levels 7 through 10 retained only ten steps each. Salary compression was forced to begin at level 7.

The ideal way to correct this inequity would be to add two additional steps to level 7, and one additional step to levels 8, 9, and 10. This would lead to the following differentials at the top steps of the levels and grades:

A partial solution, which would resolve the immediate inequity would be to add one step to level 7 and not change the others. This would increase the salary differential between levels 6 and 7 to $425, which would still be less than it was before Public Law 87-793. We hope that this committee makes that minimum change, at least.

We also ask that the bill be changed so that the time spent in step 10 of level 7 since the effective date of Public Law 87-793 (Oct. 11, 1962) may be counted toward the 3 years necessary to advance from step 10 to step 11. Those in step 10 would still need more than 2 years to reach step 11, so there would be no additional cost until fiscal year

1966.

The reason we feel that credit should be given for the time spent in step 10 of level 7 is that that time would have counted if the 11th step of level 7 had been retained in Public Law 87-793. It is simple justice and equity.

ONE-YEAR STEP INCREASES

When this committee considered the salary bill in 1962, it recognized that inequities would result if step increases were granted at 1-year intervals up to step 7 for the lower levels and not granted at the same frequency to those in the higher levels. After the committee had voted to change from the proposed 2-year intervals to 1-year intervals in steps 5, 6, and 7 in the lower levels, it decided in executive session that 1-year intervals between steps 4 and 5, 5 and 6, and 6 and 7, should be granted to all levels and so voted. However, this same extension was eliminated by the Senate committee by a vote of 5 to 4. Since the Senate decision remained in the bill, it had led to inequities. This can best be illustrated by the chart on the following page:

Mr. JOHANSEN. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to be petty about the thing and it does not go to the argument the gentleman is making at all, but I would like the record to show very clearly

that the reason the Senate decision stayed in the bill was because of the legislative procedure in which the House fund itself as a result of the Senate's usurping our legislative authority and prerogatives and sending it back as a conference report with no opportunity for amendment. I want the credit to go where it belongs.

Mr. O'DWYER. We recognize that, Mr. Johansen, and realize if the House committee's position had been maintained, this inequity currently would not be in the law.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am not questioning the gentleman's argument. I just want the record to be clear.

Mr. O'DWYER. We have a chart which follows, and again in the interest of time I will not go through all this, but you will note we have illustrated the employee in level 6 as opposed to the employee in level 7.

Employee A receives 1-year step increases from steps 3 to 7, while employee B must serve 2 years in steps 4, 5, and 6. When employee A is promoted from level 6 to level 7 after January 1967, he will go to step 7 of level 7 and it will take the senior employee B until January 1970 just to reach step 7.

The following chart shows the more equitable way of having 1-year step increases for all levels. This is what would have happened to employee A and B above:

One-year intervals in steps 5, 6, and 7 will eliminate the present inequity. If employee A is promoted under this system he would not enjoy a salary advantage over the level 7 employee who had spent more time in the higher level.

Supervisors begin their careers as clerks or carriers. It now takes 21 years to reach the top step of level 4 (the clerk-carrier level). If the employee enters the service at what is supposedly the average age of entry (27), he will be 48 years of age when he reaches step 12. If he is promoted to level 7, he is placed in step 6, where he must serve 2 years before reaching step 7. He must then spend 3 years in each of steps 7, 8, and 9 before advancing to step 10, or a total of 11 years. He