Postal field service schedule (effective on the 1st pay period after July 1, 1962)

Fourth-class office schedule (showing present salary, conversion step, and salary increase effective at the beginning of the 1st pay period after July 1, 1963)

Salary reform.... 3, 248 3,356 3,464 3,572 3, 680 3,788 3,896 4,004 4, 112 4, 220 4,328 4,436

4,544

Salary reform..

Increase....

350 to 599.99:

Present.

2,842 2,937 3,032 3, 127 3, 222 3, 317 3, 412 3,507 3, 602 3,697 3,792 3,887

3,982

608 628 648 668 688 708 728

1,737 1,794 1,851 1,908 1,965 2,022 2,079

Salary reform..

2,436 2, 517 2,598 2,679 2,760 2,841 2,922 3,003 3,084 3, 165 3,246 3,327

3,408

Salary reform..

2,030 2,098 2,166 2, 234 2,302 2,370 2,438 2, 506 2, 574 2,642 2,710 2,778

2,846

Salary reform...

1, 624 1,678 1,732 1,786 1,840 1,894 1,948 2,002 2,056 2,110 2, 164 2,218

2,272

Present

Salary reform.

745 769 793 817 841 865 889

1,218 1,258 1, 298 1,338 1,378 1,418 1, 458 1, 498 1,538 1,578 1,618 1,658

1,698

Fourth-class office schedule (effective on the 1st pay period after July 1, 1962)

Mr. PUSKAR. I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to express to you and the other distinguished members of this committee our appreciation for what you have done for us in the past and for what you are attempting to achieve for us and all postal employees

now.

I also want to thank all Congressmen who have introduced legislation in recognition of the need for pay-increase legislation this year. Our statement, Mr. Chairman, contains, on the last two pages, schedules which we have worked out, but I will confine my remarks to the summary of the statement.

We are here, Mr. Chairman, to endorse the bill introduced by you, H.R. 10480.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the President's proposal I introduced.

Mr. PUSKAR. It is the administration bill, yes. We are endorsing that bill. We think it is a good bill and we feel with a few minor adjustments it could be made the basis of a bill that will be acceptable to our membership and we hope it will be acceptable to all postal employees. We have tried to work out a plan that we think might be helpful to you and your committee in arriving at a final decision.

We have attempted in our statement, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to present an acceptable plan of salary adjustments within the framework of the President's salary reform plan. In fact, the figures we proposed are very little more than those in the bill now before you and whether we call the plan merely a salary reform or a pay increase is immaterial at the moment. It is in reality both.

The vast volume of testimony already in your hands conclusively shows need for pay raises. We ask your kind consideration, therefore, of the following specific amendments to the salary reform plan covered in this testimony.

1. That in the postal field service schedule, a pay raise of not less than 10 percent be granted all postal employees, one-half of the increase effective beginning with the first pay period after July 1, 1962, and the total increase 1 year later.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to ask a question at this point?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johansen.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Do you have any estimate as to the additional cost which this proposal would involve?

Mr. PUSKAR. Our estimate, Mr. Congressman, we have worked this out as closely as we can and we believe our proposals would cost an additional $86 million, it would add $86 million to the entire cost of the salary reform bill for postal employees.

I think it has been estimated the cost of the administration plan would be $267 million for the postal workers. This would add $86 million, making the total $362 million. You will notice we suggest the pay raise be granted over 2 years rather than 3 years as provided in the bill introduced by the chairman.

However, Congressman Johansen, the $86 million additional cost involves a minimum of 10-percent coverage within the framework of the President's pay reform plan. To achieve this coverage our schedule for the postal field service put employees in the lower levels one step higher than their present situation. If the figures of the reform plan should be recast to provide solely a 10-percent advancement, the additional cost would be in the neighborhood of $40 million. The total cost of the two phases proposed by us would be approximately $316 million; one-half or $158 million for the fiscal year 1963 and the total increase 1 year later.

2. That provision be made for employees in levels 1 to 6 to reach the top step after 18 years of service; for those in level 7 after 14 years, and for those in levels 8 to 18 after 12 years.

3. That longevity benefits be granted to employees in levels 6 to 18, by adding the dollar benefit to the computation in our suggested schedules.

4. That rural carriers be given increases in pay comparable to that proposed for employees of comparable duties and responsibilities in the postal field service schedule.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, again many thanks for your kindness in permitting us to testify today on this most important legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Puskar?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Just one question. Your proposal 2, what is the thinking back of the distinction that you draw particularly with respect to level 7?

Mr. PUSKAR. In the original bill there was a distinction because in level 7 there are 11 steps and from level 7 to 8 up to 19 there are 10 steps. Another reasoning was a lot of people above level 6 have already had years of service in level 4 and have been promoted from clerks and carriers to supervisors, et cetera, and therefore have had years of service at other levels.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Puskar.

Mr. North, do you have anything to add?

Mr. NORTH. No, Mr. Chairman. I appear here only in support of this testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

The next witness is Mr. James A. Robbins, president of the Federal Government Accountants Association.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ROBBINS, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is James A Robbins. I am a full-time civil service employee located in Washington, D.C. I am appearing here as president of the Federal Government Accountants Association.

I might point out this is a little out of order for the association because usually we do not indulge in this activity, but we are happy to have the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 10480, Federal salary reform bill, which has been recommended to the Congress by the President.

The Federal Government Accountants Association is a professional, nonprofit organization of Federal Government accountants, auditors, budget officers, and other financial management personnel. The association was founded in 1950 and incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1951. The paramount objectives of the association are the achievement of continuing improvements in financial management in Government and the encouragement of qualified young people to embark on careers in the Federal Service. Our association has grown to a present enrollment of more than 4,400 members active in 45 chapters throughout the United States and overseas.

In keeping with the educational purpose of our organization, we issue several publications, one of which we are particularly proud. This is the quarterly journal, the Federal Accountant, recently cited in the Congressional Record for its excellence. The current issue of June 1962 contains an editorial which forcefully bears out the reasoning of my testimony before you today. We offer the editorial for inclusion in the record of these hearings and will be pleased to provide copies of the Federal Accountant to those committee and staff members who may desire to have them.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The editorial from the June 1962 Federal Accountant follows:)

IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

In his recent message to Congress on Federal pay reform, President Kennedy succinctly set forth the great urgency of more equitable Federal pay legislation for the career employees in the Federal service. He rightly pointed out that the success of our Government, and thus the success of our Nation, depend in susbtantial measure on the quality of our career services on the competence, energy, loyalty, and responsibility of their members.

Men and women of the career services are a select group. Their character and associations were thoroughly investigated before they were employed and are further investigated throughout their period of employment. Their ability and competence are tested by difficult examinations or searching appraisal prior to employment and continuously throughout their Federal careers. Every public employee without exception is required to abide by rigorous standards of conduct and ethics. President Kennedy is not the first to have made these points. Every administration throughout the history of the United States has paid tribute to the invaluable services rendered by the dedicated men and women who day in and day out carry on the important work of the Government.

That morale in the career services remains generally high is more a measure of the unselfish devotion with which so many men and women of the career services serve their Government than it is a measure of the fairness with which their Government has dealt with them. For years the career services, especially in the middle and higher levels, have been grossly discriminated against in terms of the salaries received by their counterparts in private life. This unjust discrimination, not only as a matter of common fairness but in the long-term national interest, should not and must not be allowed to continue.

There is much with which to agree, little with which to disagree, in the long-awaited special message on Federal pay reform. Members of the Federal Government Accountants Association endorse overwhelmingly the principle advanced by President Kennedy that "salaries should be fixed under well understood and objective standards, high enough to attract and retain competent personnel, sufficiently flexible to motivate initiative and industry, and comparable