RETENTION OF VETERANS IN CIVIL SERVICE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, May 17, 1928. The committee this day met at 10.30 o'clock, Hon. Addison T. Smith, presiding, for consideration of H. R. 7453, which is a bill introduced by Mr. Celler to amend the act approved August 23, 1912, as amended by the act of February 28, 1916, providing for establishment of efficiency ratings and preference for persons honorably discharged from military or naval service employed in the civil service. The bill in question reads as follows: [H. R. 7453, Seventieth Congress, first session] A BILL To amend the act approved August 23, 1912, as amended by the act of February 28, 1916, providing for establishment of efficiency ratings and preference for persons honorably discharged from military or naval service employed in the civil service Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act of Congress approved August 23, 1912, as amended by the act of February 28, 1916, be, and the same is hereby, further amended so as to provide for the establishment of a system of efficiency ratings and for the extension of the preference in the aforementioned acts to honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines employed in the civil service of the United States in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. That all the branches of the executive departments of the Government and independent establishments situated in the District of Columbia and elsewhere throughout the United States shall rate the efficiency of all civil employees of the United States, excepting postal employees, pursuant to the efficiency rating system provided for in the foregoing acts of Congress. SEC. 2. Deficiency markings or ratings shall always be impartial and fairly made and shall not be so made as to prevent or circumvent veteran preferences. In the event of reduction being made in the forces in the civil service of the United States in the District of Columbia and elsewhere recourse shall not be had to enforced furloughs or enforced leaves without pay being given to those entitled to veteran preference. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lehlbach, the chairman, is not present to-day and he has requested me to preside. In the absence of a quorum, we will not take up any bill for action, but will have Mr. Celler, who is a member of the committee, present his views concerning the bill in question. Does this bill differ from the bill introduced by Mr. Fish, upon which we have already held hearings? Mr. CELLER. Mr. Fish's bill concerns preference for veterans upon entrance into the service the question of examination and the according of a preference of from five to ten points on account of their service. The bill that I have introduced seeks to weed out certain practices of bureau heads who effect a circumvention of the veterans' privilege due to those who are actually in the service. This has nothing to do with taking of examinations. 1 If you will permit me to do so, I will read a letter I wrote to Mr. Herbert D. Brown, Chief of the United States Bureau of Efficiency, under date of April 3, 1926. The letter in question will very succinctly cover the points in question, and after I read it I will have finished and will then ask that you hear Mr. Crews, a representative of the various veterans' associations. The letter in question reads as follows: Mr. HERBERT D. BROWN, United States Bureau of Efficiency, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BROWN: A delegation of veteran organizations waited upon me in my office to-day complaining about the disregarding of what is known as veteran preference in various branches of the Government. They call attention to the fact that the act of August 23, 1912, entitled veterans preference, declares: 66 * * That in the event of reduction being made in the force of any of the executive departments, no honorably discharged soldier or sailor whose record in said department is rated 'good' shall be discharged or dropped or reduced in rank or salary." This act provides further for the establishment of a system of efficiency ratings for employees of the executive departments. An Executive order of October 24, 1921, reads in part as follows: "In case of reduction of the number of employees on account of insufficient funds, or otherwise, necessary demotions and dismissals shall be made in order, beginning with the employees having the lowest ratings in each class, but honorably discharged soldiers and sailors whose ratings are good shall be given preference in selecting employees for retention." These delegations furthermore called attention to the fact that, for example, in the Brooklyn navy yard, as well as other bureaus, the veterans' preference law was circumvented by granting veterans leave without pay. Doing this, although not equivalent to a discharge, is really equivalent to being dropped from the rolls and is a violation of the act of August 23, 1912. I sympathize with the desire of the Government to have its departments working as efficiently as possible but if the charges of those delegations are true, the clear intent of the law is being violated. They claim that the Bureau of Efficiency is to blame in particular for such violations and I address my communication to you in the hope that you might let me, and these veterans know your attitude in this matter. Very truly yours, EMANUEL CELLER. Mr. CELLER. Supplementing that letter, I find that in many of the executive bureaus, the chief, being compelled to reduce his force, passes around and spots a veteran that he wants to let go and finds that he is impeded by the preference provisions, the head of that department will give the man in question an indefinite leave of absence or an indefinite furlough. A furlough usually is considered. to be for a period not to exceed 30 days; but after the 30 days are up, the head of the bureau or department will give the man another furlough after the man has returned to work for two or three days. Or he may give him a so-called indefinite leave of absence, the effect of which keeps him on the list of employed, but that is an open violation of the spirit, if not letter, of the law granting preference to veterans. While the man is on furlough, of course, he does not draw any salary, because he does not do any work. The effect of it all is that the man is dropped from the service. The man gets no benefit from his alleged employment by the Government. The various Presidents in the last two decades have issued Executive orders indicating the desirability of giving veterans their due + in this regard, and, as recently as 1925, President Coolidge issued a similar Executive order, insisting that veteran's preference be given and that the legislative enactment be not circumvented, as indicated. Section 2 of my bill provides Mr. SMITH (interposing). Have you any specific instance or instances of where that has been done? Mr. CELLER. Yes, sir. They will be outlined briefly by Mr. Crews. I have amended the act to provide that, in the event of reduction being made in the forces in the civil service of the United States in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, recourse shall not be had to enforced furloughs or enforced leaves without pay being given to those entitled to veterans' preference. One of the Executive orders provides that the veteran may nevertheless be dropped if his rating is not a good one. A good rating is 80 or more. The figure 80 is the dead line. If a veteran does not get 80, he shall not have any preference. Obviously, it would be highly unfair to go the limit for the veteran and say, despite his rating, whether he is a good mechanic, a good stenographer, or a bad mechanic or a bad stenographer, he shall nevertheless be retained in the service. In other words it has wisely been provided by the Executive orders supplementing the veterans' preference law of 1912 that the servant shall be a good one else he will not receive this preference. Mr. WOODRUM. I suppose it has been the experience of every Member of Congress, especially those on the Civil Service Committee, that one of the means of evading and failing to give justice to employees in efficiency ratings is the arbitrary fixing of the ratings just a fraction below what would entitle an employee to a promotion. If any man has ever tried to learn about those cases, he is up against a stone wall. An employee getting a rating of 80 would be entitled to promotion into a higher grade, entailing an increase of salary of $60 a year. I have in mind one employee who has been a good employee and entitled to a good efficiency rating, yet he has been for the last 10 years marked 79.75. Nobody will tell one why that is done, but it is done to keep him from going up. That is the evil of the efficiency rating. True, the employee has a right to appeal; but what does the appeal amount to. The appeal goes up to the classification board and there it hangs fire for 10 or 15 months, and as a usual thing finally dismissed. Mr. FLETCHER. And somebody with a lower rating is put over him? Mr. WOODRUM. Yes, sir. Mr. GALLINGER. I am wondering how that may be avoided unless we provide an automatic increase at stated times, which method, obviously, would promote employees of the Government who are absolutely inefficient. I am wondering how we can avoid such a system as the gentleman has just pointed out. Mr. WOODRUM. I do not know how it may be remedied. Those who have the arbitrary power to manipulate these efficiency ratings will do so regardless of law. Mr. SMITH. Is it not true that ever since the Government was formed, we might say, we have had complaints of that character, where the chief of a division takes some dislike to an employee and does not give him the advancement to which he is justly entitled? It is a question as to how we shall pass a law to meet that abuse. |