TABLE 5.-Salary of Federal classified clerical positions and of comparable positions in the United States Steel Corp.

Source: Agreement between United States Steel Corp. and United Steelworkers of America, effective Apr. 6, 1962.

TABLE 6.-Rates of pay1 for men laborers or minimum plant wage rates, selected situations, January and July 1963

TABLE 7.-Army Air Force wage board and classified hourly pay rates, annual and cumulative, for corresponding grade levels, 1952-62, inclusive

1 Based on medians of second-step rates for grade W-7 of regular wage board nonsupervisory schedules as of June 30 of each year.

2 Fourth step-rate of GS-4.

3 Average increases for all grades were 7.6 percent in 1955; 10 percent in 1958; 7.6 percent in 1960; and 5.5 percent in 1962.

Source: Army-Air Force wage board and Civil Service Commission.

TABLE 8.-Estimated percentage increase in hourly rates, selected major collective bargaining situations, August 1953 to August 19631

1 Includes general increases in rates, cost-of-living adjustments, and estimated effects of adjustments of geographic and other wage inequities; excludes effects on incentive earnings resulting from changes in outout, premium overtime pay, shift differentials, and changes in skill level, as well as other fringe benefits.

2 Percentage increases estimated by dividing cents-per-hour increases by estimated straight-time average hourly earnings for August 1953 in the industry in which the company is classified.

3 Increases negotiated with the United Steelworkers of America.

Increases negotiated at southern California plants with the International Association of Machinists. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. POOL. Mr. Griner, this is not exactly on the point, but it has been bothering me a little bit and I want to ask this question: There was an announcement in the paper the other day that Government employees and postal employees would join with COPE group of AFL-CIO in endorsing and supporting candidates for next year's election. In my opinion, that would hurt the chances of passage of this pay raise bill. Do you have a comment on that?

Mr. GRINER. We have not as of this date joined in supporting any policy.

Mr. POOL. Is it possible for you to endorse a candidate under the Hatch Act as a group?

Mr. GRINER. As a union we could. As an individual employee we

cannot.

Mr. POOL. Do you think that would be a good idea for Government employees to endorse candidates?

Mr. GRINER. No, sir.

Mr. POOL. As a group or individually?

Mr. GRINER. We have to deal with all Congressmen and all Senators. I certainly would hesitate to endorse any candidate.

Mr. POOL. You think probably your group would not go for the announcement that I saw in the paper?

Mr. GRINER. Our present thinking is we probably would not.

Mr. Pool. I think the announcement came from the COPE group and not from one of your unions in the Government. I wanted that in the record.

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olsen.

Mr. OLSEN. I want to commend Mr. Griner on a comprehensive statement. Particularly I am happy that you point out the shortcomings of previous pay acts. I think these matters should be brought to the attention of this committee so that we will treat the present proposals with greater care. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRINER. I would like to thank you, Congressman, and I would like to say that in this latter part of my statement I had a comment,

only a comment, on the acceptable level of competence, which I hope this committee will have time to hold hearings on because that is a discriminatory piece of legislation if I have ever seen one. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, the next witness is Mr. John G. Brady, chairman, Committee on Legislation, National Association of Internal Revenue Employees. He is accompanied by Mr. George Bursach, executive secretary-treasurer, and Mr. John L. Barnes, Sr., chairman, Committee on Civil Service.

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. BRADY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE BURSACH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER; AND JOHN L. BARNES, SR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am especially pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you, because all of us here today are well aware of sections 502 through 504 of title I of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 which spells out in detail the contractual agreement the Congress made with Federal careerists.

Since Congress endorsed the comparability feature by its action last year, we believe that this 88th Congress will pass legislation so that Federal salaries will be brought into line and kept in line with general national salary levels.

COST OF LIVING- -AUGUST 1963

After a year of stable living costs, wage earners are now being hit by a boost in the cost of living. Dun & Bradstreet's wholesale food price index by midsummer had reached its highest level since last December. This means you are going to pay more for food in the future, and also keep in mind, when pay raises are proposed, immediately thereafter the utilities companies submit requests for increases in serving transportation, gas, electricity, telephone, and housing.

STUDY OF FEDERAL PAY

Study of Federal pay conditions explicitly indicate that the reason Government employees' salaries lag so far behind wages in private industry, is that increases in Federal pay come too infrequently. Pay increases in private industry are usually increased on an annual basis, and are often written into union contracts. These same increases are therefore accomplished automatically and without much, if any, publicity. Studies show that the average wage increase in private industry was about 3 percent last year.

On the other hand, Federal pay increases come far too infrequently. Usually they are only achieved after a long period of strenuous campaigning and by using the maximum of publicity. This arrangement is inefficient, most expensive, uncertain and time consuming. By the time the President signs a new pay bill into law, the level of Federal wages has already fallen behind wages in outside industry.

In October of 1962 Congress passed the Federal pay reform legislation as part of Public Law 87-793. As a result, Congress is honorbound to act on adjusting Federal pay schedules on a comparability basis with private industry whenever the President, on the basis of annual surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, finds the level of Federal pay has lagged significantly behind the level of pay for comparable jobs in private industry.

On April 29, 1963, the President recommended such comparability pay increases for Federal employees to become effective January 1, 1964. It is the firm believe of all Internal Revenue employees that the Congress should now live up to its obligation of last year. If such action is not taken, the important principle of comparability will possibly be lost forever.

Even if the Congress does act favorably on the President's recommendations the proposed increases will lag because the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes its survey at the end of the year, covering conditions existing during the 12 months immediately past. So by the time the employees would be getting their pay increases, they would be lagging 2 years behind true compatibility with outside industry.

It seems that everybody is for a comparability pay increase. The President has recommended a comparability increase. The Bureau of the Budget supports the increase and so does the Civil Service Commission. We are certain that a vast majority of the Members of both Houses of Congress are in favor of the increase. The National Association of Internal Revenue Employees recommends and urges the passage of this vitally important legislation.

I would appreciate a few moments of your time regarding the adjusting of statutory salaries. My brief submitted today is strictly keyed to comparability.

I believe the record will show that we were the only organization that endorsed the Murray bill last year. Since Congress endorsed the comparability feature by its actions last year, we in the Internal Revenue Service believe that the 88th Congress will pass legislation so that Federal salaries will be brought into line and kept in line with the general national salary levels.

Let me say a few words about the training of new employees in the past couple years in the Internal Revenue Service. I have been a part of this training of the internal revenue employees, and we are securing topflight college graduates, well equipped in knowledge. It has been a pleasure working with these new employees. But I am saddened when we finish this very expensive training to have many of these employees leave the Service to industry.

Mr. OLSEN. May I interrupt you, sir?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. Do you have figures on that?

Mr. BRADY. I can secure it for the committee.

Mr. OLSEN. I would like to have them,

Mr. BRADY. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. The data will be inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The material follows:)

LEGISLATIVE SURVEY

President John L. Barnes, Sr., Chapter 65, National Association of Internal Revenue Employees, today announced the results of a successful survey concerning legislative items of interest for all IRS employees.

The survey forms were distributed to approximately 3,000 IRS employees in the Washington area. Replies were received from 351 employees. Preference for 30-year retirement was indicated by 77.5 percent of those replying to the survey. The next six major areas of concern were:

2. Sick leave credit to annuity computation_.

3. Federal classified pay legislation_-_

4. Additional group life insurance.

5. Parking accommodations__.

6. Social Security credit (optional). 7. Retirees' appropriation_‒‒‒‒

Percent

73.5

53.3

46. 2

37.0

34.5

31.9

President Barnes expressed surprise to the interest shown in sick leave credit to the annuity computation, additional group life insurance, and parking accommodations. Much interest was noted by IRS employees in the Washington area in pending legislation as a result of this survey.

Mr. Barnes strongly urged Mr. John G. Brady, chairman, NAIRE National Committee on Legislation, to continue his aggressive pursuit of legislation preferred by employees as indicated in this survey.

1 Previous survey concerning withholding of State income tax which revealed 446 employees desired to have State income tax withheld where they worked in a different tax jurisdiction than place of residence.

Mr. BRADY. I do hope you will be able to adjust the salaries on a comparability basis. We need these well-educated and trained people to do the job, and maybe in due time, with the talents, we can cut down our cost and still keep good efficiency.

In closing, over 60,000 Internal Revenue employees realize the great work by the Congress in what they are doing for the Nation. We all realize the high cost of operations in Washington, D.C. My only hope here today is that the President will make a strong plea for adjustments in the salaries of the Congress and their staffs. Thank you.