STATEMENT OF RUSSELL M. STEPHENS, PRESIDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY MAX SHINE, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFLCIO

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir.

Chairman Johnston and members of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the American Federation of Technical Engineers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, is an organization representing engineering, scientific, and technical employees, many of whom are in the service of the Federal Government, particularly in the agencies charged with research and development, industrial operations, and reclamation projects. For purposes of identification, my name is Russell M. Stephens, president of that organization, and accompanying me is Mr. Max Shine, Federal employee representative of our organization.

Our testimony today will be concentrated and focused on the need for salary reform and the immediate need for salary increases within the occupational group composed of engineering, scientific, and engineering related occupational family within the Federal Government. Our reference to "engineer related occupational family" would include that group of technician personnel who are so desperately needed as a backup and supporting staff to the professional engineers and scientists performing basic research and preliminary design in the professional categories of employment.

The Government must not be hampered in its effort to recruit the most qualified employees within the above-mentioned group for public service.

There is much published material pointing out the shortage of engineering and scientific personnel, as well as the shortage of engineering technicians and similar groups. It might be pointed out that 75 percent of all research and development activity in the United States is sponsored by the Federal Government.

Such work is performed either through its in-house capabilities for research and development or through projects contracted out to private enterprise having competency in the research, development, and design areas. Thus it can be seen that only 25 percent of our scientific, engineering, and technical capabilities is being used for the development of products for private consumption. The Federal Government therefore is, because of its urgent need for scientific and engineering advancement, the determining factor with respect to the tremendous manpower requirements in the occupations that have been previously noted.

Federally financed research and development work now amounts to about $10 billion per year, with 80 percent of such work conducted through non-Federal institutions. We should increase the Government's capacity to do its own scientific and technical work without setting any limits on the amount done by institutions and contractors. Figures indicate that the engineering shortage will be with us for some time to come. The U.S. Office of Education, through a series of surveys, has determined that between 1950 and 1953 the population of freshmen entering the engineering schools, as related to all freshmen entering our universities and colleges, rose from 6.6 to 10.6 percent of the total enrollment.

Between 1953 and 1957 such relationship of college enrollments remained fairly constant, and in 1957 the percentage enrollment was at the rate of 10.8 percent of the total. However, since 1957 to the present date we find a decrease in ratio.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call to your attention there, too, that those figures might be a little misleading in the wrong direction from what you might want. This is due to the fact that the student bodies have increased tremendously, and when you say that the percentage rose from 6.6 to 10.6 percent, that is of the freshman class entering the various schools. It would probably be up to 20 percent over what it was. You see my point, I think.

Mr. STEPHENS. The chairman is perfectly correct. I am trying to point out the fact that the percentage of enrollments in engineering is gradually decreasing.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. STEPHENS. In fact in 1962 the enrollments are only 6.6 percent of the total seeking baccalaureate degrees in the engineering profession. This descending order of engineering enrollments should be of major concern, especially in view of our Nation's stepped-up activity in the field of space exploration, national defense, and other projects, which will be necessary to maintain our leadership in the world.

This shortage of skilled engineering and technical personnel becomes more acute in the United States in comparison with the output of similar personnel in other countries.

A recent study warns that Federal science faces a crisis unless something is done promptly to improve the salary and lot of Government scientists and engineers. We learn, almost daily, of some of our most competent Federal employees leaving the public service for employment in private industry at substantial increases in compensation.

Recently career conferences have been held in Washington and Baltimore, whereby Government engineers, scientists, technicians, and others in related positions were urged to make themselves available for conferences with assembled employers of the Nation, interested in hiring these Federal employees at munificent salaries; in other words, hiring away these employees, trained and skilled at Government expense, for employment in private industry at wages which the Federal Government could not meet under the present classification schedule.

This further points up the need and absolute necessity for increasing our national manpower pool of highly competent, well-trained, experienced personnel in the technician areas, in order to free our fully professional scientists and engineers from duties involving less than full professional responsibility.

There is no doubt but what there will be increasing competition for the services of both the professional and technical employees, and we assert positively that the in-house capabilities of the Federal Government should be kept at a level necessary for the utmost protection of the public interest.

To illustrate this point, we would cite the historic and wonderful orbits through space, piloted by Col. John Glenn on February 20 and Comdr. Scott Carpenter on May 24. While the resources of our vast industrial system were required in order to make these

flights possible, nevertheless, an agency of Government, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, provided the in-house capabilities and requirements, established basic scientific objectives, and provided, under Government control, the leadership and know-how to administer the complex teamwork required to draw the many private consultants and industrial organizations into a workable and comprehensive team.

This is true with respect to all major research, development, and industrial projects, either on the drawing boards, the test blocks, or in the operational stages. One of our principal projects in the area of naval warfare, the Polaris program, was conceived and quarterbacked by employees of the Federal Government.

It was they that made the initial determinations and drew up the specifications from which private enterprise has worked toward the development of hardware required for the intricate power systems, launching mechanisms, and guidance systems.

These two examples and many more could be added-are intended to pinpoint the necessity of maintaining in-house capabilities and the need for the highest available skills which are required for the maintenance of such capabilities. Such required skills are found, not only in professional engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, but are also found in the less than professional, highly trained technicians.

The Director of the space agency warns us that salaries must go up if that agency is to continue its outstanding work and not be hampered in its efforts to secure and retain the most qualified personnel.

We do not wish to dwell any further on the shortage of these critical occupations, because of the fact that the President of the United States and spokesmen for the administration have previously brought this matter to the attention of the Nation and this committee.

Now the problem is, what can be done to assure the Federal Government that it will be able to recruit and retain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel within its agencies in such a competitive climate as we find today. A survey made by the National Industrial Conference Board and reported in their Economic Almanac for 1962, published in cooperation with Newsweek, shows that the median annual earnings of professional engineers employed by the Federal Government are in many instances less than those paid by State and local governments.

The survey released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, based upon data accumulated during the winter of 1960 and 1961, reveals that with the exception of attorneys at the top bracket in industry, the average prevailing wage rate of engineers is higher than that of other occupations surveyed.

This survey reveals that there is a 20-percent differential between the GS-5 professional engineer in Government service and his counterpart for equal responsibilities in private industry. GS-5 is the entrance level in the professional engineering service in Federal Government. This survey also reveals that an engineer entering private industry has the opportunity over his professional life of increasing his salary 600 percent from that of his starting rate, while the Federal employee can expect to increase his salary by half that amount over a lifetime period.

79631-62-17

Ohio State University made a survey of 3,300 graduates out of college over a 30-year period and how they fared. The average male graduate doubled his starting salary in 5 years; tripled it in 10 years, and after 15 years was earning four times as much. This cannot happen under the present classified pay schedule.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we respectfully submit that the most rapid means by which this disparity could be eliminated would be by the adoption of legislation similar to that introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Morrison. Congressman Morrison's bill, H.R. 9935, would provide amendments to the salary schedule presently contained in section 603(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, more in line with industry salaries for the present grade levels for positions in the engineering, scientific, and technical classifications.

This bill would grant, as earlier stated, immediate relief, but would not, in our opinion, provide the flexibility required to take care of the economic changes occurring from year to year which tend to throw the relationship of many Classification Act positions out of line with respect to each other. Such relationship was established in the Classification Act of 1923, and at that time the Congress no doubt provided for as an accurate alinement between positions as was possible in such a vast and complex system as the classified civil service.

The highly technical, atomic, and space age in which we live, with its needs for higher skills, is a far cry since those days of the model-A Fords, water-powered washing machines and crystal radios. The atomic and space age requires that positions in which these skills are predominate, have a built-in method within the Classification Act under which they can from time to time have salary adjustments, more in keeping with those of private industry.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we would suggest that in addition to the basic salary increase features of the Morrison bill, that a second title be added which would have the effect of incorporating certain provisions of S. 1713 introduced by Senator Magnuson. Generally speaking, this bill would establish a separate system of classification and compensation of professional engineering, physical science, and related positions in the Federal Government.

S. 1713, as written and introduced, is not perfect, and in our opinion would require modification, but it does establish a principle whereby a salary schedule of these most critical occupations could be reviewed regularly by the Congress and adjustments made to preserve the status of this most important family of occupations by which recruiting and retention problems would be at least eased, if not completely eliminated.

We suggest and strongly urge that should this committee recommend the inclusion of a separate professional engineering, scientific schedule to the Congress, that they add to the initial coverage, which presently under the Magnuson bill includes the engineering group, physical sciences group, and the mathematics group; the engineering related occupational family, such as engineering technician, engineering designer, engineering draftsman, as examples, at a point at which the incumbents have reached the present grade GS-9 and above levels.

We recommend these levels because of the fact that from grade 9 upward we find that technicians related to the engineering pro

fessions have reached their full performance level and are, so to speak, journeymen in their occupations. There is, however, one general provision of S. 1713 to which we are strongly opposed.

This is found in section 8(c) of the bill, which would require that no person would be appointed, promoted, or transferred to a position. in the professional engineering-scientific schedule after the first day of the first pay period which begins more than 2 years after the effective date of the act, unless such person shall hold a bachelor's degree, signifying graduation from an accredited engineering, physical science, or mathematics curriculum or is licensed or certified as an engineerin-training or professional engineer under the engineering registration law of any State, territory, or the District of Columbia.

Inclusion of such language in any bill passed by the Congress would narrow the field of recruitment to a large degree. Many persons have been certified by the Civil Service Commission as professional engineers and are doing an outstanding job for the Federal Government in their profession who do not hold degrees or professional licenses. Many extremely capable practitioners have become skilled in their field by starting their careers in an apprenticeable trade and after having taken engineering subjects in universities and technical institutes, have been reassigned from their respective shops to the drafting room where they have been trained first as draftsmen and then, through progressive training, as engineering designers and engineering technicians.

After many years of such progressive training and night school academic work they have taken an engineering equivalency examination, conducted under regulations prescribed by the Civil Service Commission, testing their abilities to perform as professional engineers, and if successful have been certified to professional engineering positions.

The record will show conclusively that many top qualified professional engineers have achieved their positions in such manner. Thomas Edison, not being a graduate engineer could not have been hired by the Federal Government under such a restriction, in that, despite his ability, inventiveness, and ingenuity, he did not receive a formal education and a bachelor's degree.

The most recent example is Nobel Price winner Dr. Linus Pauling, one of the most famous physicists in the world. He did not get his high school diploma until June 1962, 44 years after he left high school in Portland, Oreg. Col. John Glenn and Comdr. Scott Carpenter great and outstanding examples of men, possessed with extreme engineering and scientific knowledge, would not qualify as a GS-5 professional engineer under section 8(c).

I have taken the liberty, Mr. Chairman, of writing to Senator Magnuson, author of S. 1713, calling his attention to our objections to section 8(c) and have received a reply from this distinguished Member of the Senate, advising me that he would call our opposition and recommendations on S. 1713 to the attention of the chairman and members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and urge that careful consideration to my suggestions be given, and assurance be given you that he would have no objections to amending the original bill along the lines that I indicated.

The Astin Committee concluded in its report that a maximum salary of at least $25,000 to $30,000 is necessary for superior research