I am very greatly interested in this bill, and feel that its enactment would make for very far-reaching and substantial improvements in the administrative structure of the Federal Government.

Pressing defense budget matters will not permit me personally to appear at this hearing, but Mr. Edgar B. Young, of this Bureau, will represent me. Very truly yours,

HAROLD D. SMITH, Director.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR B. YOUNG, PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ANALYST FOR PERSONNEL, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness this morning is Mr. Edgar B.
Young, principal administrative analyst for personnel, Bureau of the
Budget.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I shall be very brief. There are other persons to be heard this morning who are of far greater importance in this picture than I am.

It may serve a useful purpose to the committee to outline rather explicitly some of the implications of this bill, some of its administrative features, and to indicate our preliminary estimate of the cost of the changes proposed in the bill.

I should like to insert in the record a table that indicates the present pay scales under the Classification Act and the proposed changes incorporated in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to have you do so.

Mr. YOUNG. The table in question reads as follows:

Pay rates under the Classification Act. Present and changes proposed by

H. R. 6217

[NOTE.-Changes are indicated in any grade for which two lines appear. The first line is the present pay scale; the second is the proposed scale]

Pay rates under the Classification Act. Present and changes proposed by H. R. 6217-Continued

CLERICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND FISCAL SERVICE-PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC

Mr. YOUNG. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that any salary plan for the Government should be based on several generally accepted principles.

The following may serve as guideposts for consideration of the bill:

First, there should be an internal consistency to the plan, adherence to "equal pay for equal work," which means also consistent and equitable relationships between different kinds of work wherever found in the service.

A second general principle that might serve as a guidepost for consideration of the bill is that the prevailing rates of pay for similar types of work outside the Government should constitute a major criterion for the setting of pay rates in the Government.

And I suggest as a third guidepost the principle that the Government should fix a minimum wage rate consistent with generally accepted minimum standards of living.

It seems to me that the bill under consideration is in accordance with those generally accepted principles.

May I call your attention briefly to the specific provisions of the bill as we understand them? First let us consider the custodial service. The bill proposes to change the name of that service to the crafts, protective, and custodial service, which would indicate the nature of the positions that occur within that service. All the skilled craftsmen positions, mechanics, and all guards and other protective types of positions are now classified as "custodial," a word which does not properly or adequately identify those positions.

The changes in pay rates in the custodial service are indicated in the first part of the table I have submitted.

Custodial grade 1 is used only for messenger boys and does not represent a rate of pay for full-time adult workers.

Custodial grade 2, with pay at $1,080 a year, is for all practical purposes the base rate in that service. The proposal is to raise this pay to a minimum of $1,200 a year with corresponding adjustments within the grade.

Next we have custodial grade 3, with a minimum pay of $1,200 a year, which this bill would increase to $1,320 a year.

I might point out in passing that at present guard positions are by statute required to be allocated to grade 3 of the custodial service. This bill would remove that requirement and permit their allocation in custodial grade 4, which now carries a pay at $1.320, and which would be increased to $1,500 a year under the proposed pay scale.

There are corresponding changes in the other classes of the custodial service or under the new proposed title, namely, the crafts, protective, and custodial service.

In the subprofessional grade changes are proposed in two grades only. Grade 1, which represents principally hospital attendants and workers of that type now has a minimum pay rate of $1,020 a year, while this bill proposes to raise that rate to $1,200 a year. Grade 2 now carries $1,260 a year and it is by this bill proposed to raise that to $1,320 a year.

The remaining rates in the subprofessional service are not proposed to be changed.

In the clerical, administrative, and fiscal, and in the professional and scientific services, both of which follow the same general pattern of pay rates, no changes are proposed below the $5,400 salary level.

Mr. McReynolds has indicated in his testimony the general nature of the proposed changes for the top administrative positions.

The highest grade to which the Civil Service Commission can allocate the most responsible administrative positions in the service is now grade 15 with base pay at $8,000. Grade 16, defined in the present Classification Act, with a rate above $9,000, is used only by express authorization of the Congress, and something more than 200 positions have already been authorized, with pay rates above $9,000 a year. Mrs. ROGERS. What positions would those be?

Mr. YOUNG. These would be, perhaps, best thought of as the bureau chief positions in the most responsible and important bureaus of the Government. They would be the highest administrative positions in the career service of the Government.

Mrs. ROGERS. And you say there are about 200 of them?

Mr. YOUNG. About 200 such positions have been allowed by the Congress at pay more than $9,000 a year. Most of them are at the rate of $10,000 each year.

Mrs. ROGERS. How many men of that kind would be needed?

Mr. YOUNG. I would hesitate to suggest the exact number, but it would be a small number. Perhaps the representative of the Civil Service Commission, who is here, is able to give some indication of the probable number of positions.

That level would be reserved for a small number of positions and cover only those that are outstanding in administrative importance.

In addition to that provision, we regard as quite important the proposed adoption of four levels of positions immediately below $9,000 instead of the three existing levels. At the present time a position just below this top level of responsibility must be allocated either to a salary of $6,500 a year or $8,000 a year. We feel that the spread of $1,500 a year is too wide to recognize the differences in levels of responsibility which occur in any large organization.

In many instances positions seem to have duties and responsibilities that are too heavy properly to place them in the $6,500 level, and at the same time there is a question as to whether they belong in the $8,000 level.

This proposal would introduce a new grade at $7,000 a year. Those positions would range from $7,000 to $8,000.

This bill would alter the existing pay grades below that so that there would be a pay scale of $6,200 to $7,000 for the new grade 14, and $5,400 to $6,200 for the new grade 13.

I should like now to say a word about the administrative provisions of the bill. There is a proviso in the bill that no employee shall have his salary reduced as the result of the operation of this amendment. The changes in the custodial and subprofessional grades would be virtually automatic. An employee whose salary is below the minimum rate established in the new grade would have his salary increased to the minimum rate. If the employee's salary at present were above the minimum rate it would remain there but he would have a higher ceiling toward which he could advance in his grade.

No changes would be made in the top administrative positions until the positions had been reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and their duties and responsibilities analyzed and allocation made to a new grade.

In the field service, pending the extension of the classification act to that service, under title 2 of the Ramspeck Act the heads of departments would be directed to allocate their field positions to the new grades.

With reference to the probable cost, the Bureau of the Budget estimates indicate that the annual cost of the proposed changes included in this bill would be approximately $19,898,000, against which there would be offset from anticipated within-grade salary advancements, which would occur under public law no. 200, during this current fiscal year, amounting to $4,130,000, or a net annual increase of $15,768,000.

It should be pointed out that this estimate is based on the number of employees in the service at the present time, which is, of course, very much larger than the number anticipated in the permanent Government structure; so that the annual cost, after the war, would be expected to be reduced proportionately to the reduction in the number of the employees in these grades.

I can give more detailed information as to cost, if it is wanted. The CHAIRMAN. Have you an estimate as to the number of employees that would be affected by this proposal?

Mr. YOUNG. The total coverage of the bill we estimate is approximately 180,000, of which about 157,000 are in the field service and approximately 23,000 in the departmental service.

Mr. BECKWORTH. As I understand, only about 23,000 employees in Washington would be affected by this proposal.

Mr. YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How many employees have we in the District of Columbia?

The CHAIRMAN. I can answer that. There are about 200,000 in round figures.

Mr. BECKWORTH. So that 167,000 Federal employees would not be affected at all in Washington.

Mr. YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. BECKWORTH. I am wondering whether those 167,000 Federal employees realize that they will not be affected by this proposed bill. Mr. YOUNG. This bill, as Mr. Ramspeck has indicated, is not in the nature of a general pay increase for all Federal employees. On the contrary, it is in the nature of an adjustment of basic pay rates in recognition of inequalities and inequities existing in the pay structure. The CHAIRMAN. Those inequalities and inequities are not necessarily the result of the increased cost of living that has been effected? Mr. YOUNG. I think that is true.

I think those have developed over a long period of time and become acute in the war situation, because of the difficulty in obtaining workers in these particular occupational groups.

The CHAIRMAN. From your study of these positions covered by this proposed change, am I correct in assuming that if this bill is enacted into law the pay scale for the particular work done in the crafts,

66594-41- -3