« PreviousContinue »
1, 299 1,006
288 1, 116 77.4
+$1, 390 - $3,397 +$320
6. 3 $15, 369 $17, 108
2, 947 40,1
6, 497 88.6
Civil Service Commission occupation title and series No.
Difference in relation to average salary of all employees.
2,881 2,560 307
88.5 10.6 19, 940 $20, 290 $16, 127
Accounting (510): Employee totals:
Civil Service Commission occupation title and series No.
Contract and procurement (1102):
Mr. CLAY. May I ask another question just about that.
Mr. Clay. I just had this one question. An attachment to your Federal Personnel Manual System No. 713-22, you articulate as to the policy of the agency in this regulation—"That while the law did not specify any minimum or maximum grade levels for upward mobility levels, generally the greatest opportunity for impact is at the lower grade levels. Therefore, it is anticipated most agency programs will be dealing with programs at the GS-7 or equivalent levels and below." Why is it that you don't have that regulation for the top grades?
Mr. KATOR. That is deliberate and we discussed this at the time the equal opportunities legislation was being discussed. The heavy concentration of minorities and women was, at that time, in 1972, even heavier than it is now, in the lower grade levels. It was our concern that we do something at those grade levels to help people gain new skills, get them out of the deadended positions. At the middle and high level positions, you don't have the same type of problem. It is not usually a problem of training persons to get new skills at those levels. We deliberately aimed the upward mobility program at what was the biggest group of minority employees and women to see if we couldn't get the maximum impact for the dollar.
Mr. Hampton. Let me comment on this. We also have, which is not covered under that particular thing, a new management development effort, an executive development effort, and part of that too is to assure that the kinds of training that managers need to move up, although they are basically entry level people, we have 7, 9, 11, and 13, and have requested agencies to even develop individual development plans for individuals in that particular area to achieve greater utilization of skill. All of our discussions with the agencies, when you go to these training sessions for managers and so forth, that minorities and women are represented there and given these opportunities. That is on the other end of the scale.
Mr. Clay. Doesn't the law require you to deal across the board?
Mr. Hampton, before the recess, I think Mr. Clay had pursued a series of questions which I would like to follow up. I have, for example, before me, the breakout in certain professional occupations. For example, in the occupation of general attorney in the Federal service, the average salary is $24,904. The average salary for minorities is $22,656, which is $2,248 below the average, and the average salary for women is $22,081, which is $2,823 below the average. In the contract and procurement series, the average salary is $18,657. The average salary for minorities is $2,966 below that average and the average salary for women is $3,897 below the average. In numerous other occupations, that I will not take the time to mention, we get the same situation, where we get a differential in salary for minorities and women.
Now, first of all, may I ask you whether or not this is indicative of systemic discrimination as opposed to the idea that discrimination occurs only in one-on-one situations?
Mr. HAMPTON. No, I don't think so. I think that reflects more recent entry into the category. Under the job classification system, if someone is an attorney, GS-12, they all draw the same salary. The differential would be in the amount of time that they have spent in grade in which they are entitled to within-grade increases based upon longevity and I would assume that is what is reflected there. There is, I think, a 30-percent differential.
Mr. HAWKINS. Would that not also indicate that systematically, then, minorities and women entered at a much later time- a whole class of people had the same experience and it is not useful to look only at individuals.
Mr. HAMPTON. I think it would represent more recent efforts to recruit people into those particular occupations and that they were starting at the base rate.
Mr. HAWKINS. Then, don't you think that you have to deal with it on a group basis rather than on an individual by individual basis?
Mr. HAMPTON. I don't see how we could do that, sir. If a person comes in as a Grade 12, the law states that they will stay within that grade for the required time.
Mr. HAWKINS. I am not thinking of that. I am thinking of the upward mobility concept that deals with affected classes rather than individual discrimination. The term affected class indicates that there is some kind of group discrimination does it not?
Mr. HAMPTON. I am not sure that I get the thrust of the question. Mr. HAWKINS. I am not so sure you get it either.
Mr. HAMPTON. The thing is that salary averages would reflect length of time in grade for the same grade-in other words, we have a classified system that sets up 18 different grade levels, and everyone who is in that level gets the same salaries, but if someone stays in the grade for 3 years, he would get more than someone who just entered the grade.
Mr. HAWKINS. We also included the accessions figures which indicate you are just not bringing in minorities and women as fast as white males, for example, so you couldn't possibly reach any goal within any particular grade if you are not bringing them in.
Mr. Kator. Mr. Hawkins, let me try to respond to that. I think we are. Our accession data shows that minorities are entering the service overall at the rate of 17 or 18 percent. In terms of total numbers we have indicated the federal employment is 21 percent minority so our question is not overall numbers. The question you are raising relates to certain occupations, why there is a difference in average salary? When you have outreach programs that are bringing people in, this is bound to affect the average salary and the new people coming in may well be minorities or women who would tend to have a lower salary than those at the higher grades. I believe it represents the results of affirmative action effort to get minorities and women into these occupations. With respect to lawyers in the Federal Government 8.2 percent of all Federal Government lawyers are female and of all lawyers in the work force, according to the Department of Labor figures, only 4.7 percent female.
Mr. HAWKINS. You are saying then that when women, who in every instance, are receiving lower salaries, that this circumstance is due to their length of service, that they are recent entrants, persons recently
promoted, and in no instance have you, in reviewing the plans that have been submitted, found any differential in pay?
Mr. Kator. I am not really saying that Mr. Chairman because I would have to look at the specific data to find out what the situation with respect to every woman is. What I am indicating is affirmative efforts will have the effect of lowering an average salary for a group at a given grade. If you are bringing new people in at Grade 9, in a particular occupation, and those new people are minorities or women, they will necessarily show an average salary that is lower for them than for persons who have been in the occupation for some time and have moved up to journeyman and senior positions.
Mr. HAMPTON. If you have a white male and you have a woman and you have a minority and hire at the entry level, you would hire them all at the same rate.
Mr. Hawkins. I have no question about that. I think that would necessarily follow, but the results don't indicate there has been any strenuous effort to equalize these differentials and that is the thing we are concerned with and disturbed about-results. We know it isn't going to be done over night. It has been a long time and it probably will take much longer than what you are anticipating to get any type of removal of these disparities.
Mr. Kator. I think the differential in salary between groups and among groups may well continue for some time because of the very affirmative action efforts we are making.
Mr. HAWKINS. In reading the Federal Personnel Letter 1713-22, you use this phrase, and I quote: “When used, goals should be set at the lowest practicable level in the agency.” What did you mean by that particular sentence?
Mr. Kator. That means the lowest organizational entity or unit in which it is practicable to set a goal. We don't think it makes much sense to set overall goals on an agency basis that does not have relevance to the particular situation of the organizational units that make up that agency.
Mr. Hawkins. Don't you think that is a limiting phrase and it restricts the operation?
Mr. KATOR. No.
Mr. HAWKINS. Let me read the rest of it. "Goals should be set at the lowest practicable level in the agency to assure they are reasonable in terms of their relationship to hiring needs and their skills available in the recruiting areas".
I still don't know what that means. Your answer doesn't relate to that statement.
Mr. KATOR. Well
Mr. HAWKINS. If they are to be used in terms of their relationship to the hiring needs and skills available, why should the goals be set at the lowest practicable level?
Mr. KATOR. What we are suggesting is that those hiring needs should be determined by individual components of the agency that are working in particular recruiting areas, say, at St. Louis or New York, where the situation may be quite different. We are saying you need to relate and set your goals on what you may be hiring. The only way it makes to us reasonable sense, it seems to me, is where you have some kind of