Hon. CARTER GLASS, Chairman Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, DEAR SIR: I am appearing before this committee as a bona fide citizen of Washington, which permits me this privilege. It is my desire to present a few facts that I believe the committee is not acquainted with, relative to the fire and police departments' pay status. There are men in these departments that have served 10 years, but do not receive a private's full pay. This is hard to believe, but nevertheless it is true. The privates in the fire and police departments all do the same kind of work, are subject to the same calls and are governed by the same rules and regulations respectively. A new man enters the fire or police departments at $500 a year less than a regular fireman or policeman, he has done so with the understanding that he will receive a private's full pay at the end of 5 years. He is to receive an increase of $100 each year until he has served 5 years. This is not in any manner a promotion as it is to be construed that promotion means more difficult duties or raise in rank. Any dictionary will define promotion to mean raised to higher authority. In fact, from the entry of a new man in the department, he is performing the same work, he is required to retain the same knowledge of his work that any older employee does. It is therefor readily apparent that his duties and requirements being equal to the other privates of these departments, his pay should be relatively equal. Instead of this about one half of the privates in the fire and police departments do not receive a private's full pay. Is it reasonable that one private should perform the same duties and be subject to the same rules and regulations as other privates yet be discriminated against in the manner of his pay? It has been assumed by the originators of the present salary-increase plan that each year's experience for the first 5 years shall entitle a new member to an increase of $100 a year in pay, this increase originally being intended as compensation for a year's experience and not as a promotion. It is therefore apparent that a man's experience gained during a period of time was the yardstick used in granting these increases and not promotion. The man serves his year, received the experience that entitles him to the increase, yet such increases have not been granted because this experience has been ruled promotion. There has been no promotion; the man is still a private, has performed the same duties as other privates, and been subjected to the same requirements. The duties being equal, the requirements being equal, why then should the pay not be equal to the extent of the experience gained as originally intended? There are privates in the fire and police departments that have served 10 years, yet do not receive a private's full pay. In some instances the loss of these increases with the added pay cut amounts to 25 percent; with the 31⁄2 percent deducted for retirements, is equal to almost one third of the original base pay. In conclusion I wish to add that firemen here in the District work 72 hours a week; are subject to call at all times without extra pay. They also have served as auxiliary police during the hunger-marchers' stay in the Capital. They are not included in the holidays granted other Government employees. I thank you. CHARLES E. FRENCH. The following are examples of discriminations in the pay of privates in the fire and police departments: Private with over 10 years' service has a loss of $360_ Private with 2 years' service has a loss of $485. Private with 1 year's service has a loss of $385. Private with 4 years' service has a loss of $515. Private with 5 years' service has a loss of $530. Pay cut 15 percent $360 345 300 285 285 315 330 As is readily seen the privates with the least pay are subjected to the greatest losses. BRIEF FILED BY MR. CHARLES E. GIBSON, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE LABORERS DEAR SIRS: Speaking for the laborers in the Post Office and Railway Mail Service on the proposed pay cut for the fiscal year 1934-35; I wish to say that the basic pay for laborers is $1,500 and $1,600 per year, which is hardly enough to buy the necessities of life, and with the present pay cut it makes it all the harder to balance the budget; and I want to say that it has been impossible for any of us laborers during the last 2 years to save anything for any emergency, that may arise. The Reclassification Act of February 1925 gave an increase of $300 to all postal employees except the laborer in the Postal Service, and I believe that it is an injustice to the laborer to continue the pay cut for another year, whereas, the administration is asking outside business to increase the pay of their employees, and at the same placing the Federal employee on a reduced pay. I beleive that you will see the justice of our plea and that you will not want to force the Government worker to merely exist and that you will restore the basic pay of the laborer to the $1,500 and $1,600 level so that we can at least save a little for an emergency. According to American standards of living, this is most reasonable request and I hope that it meets with your approval. Respectfully yours, CHAS. E. GIBSON, President National Association of Post Senator BYRNES. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, Jan. 29, 1934, at 10 a.m.) INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1935 MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1934 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m. in the committee room, Capitol, Hon. Richard B. Russell, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Russell (acting chairman), Coolidge, Adams, McCarran, Hale, and Steiwer, of the subcommittee; also, Senators Reed, Dill, and Dieterich. Senator Russell (presiding). General Hines, Senator Byrnes has sent word to me that he is unavoidably detained, and asked me to proceed with the hearing. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. FRANK T. HINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS; SAMUEL M. MOORE, JR., BUDGET OFFICER AND CHIEF OF STATISTICS, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION; AND J. O'CONNOR ROBERTS, SOLICITOR General HINES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate the courtesy of being invited here today; and through the courtesy of the committee I have had an opportunity of having representatives sit in at the various hearings during last week, so I am familiar with most of the main points that have been called to the attention of the committee. I also know the recommendations that have been made to the committee by the several service organizations. It is my purpose in appearing, of course, to give the committee definite information with relation to these recommendations, and to assist them in any way I can in reaching a determination as to their action in regard to them. The American Legion has advocated what is known as a four-point program. The important point is the point that has to do with the restoration of those men who were on the rolls on March 20, 1933, when the Economy Act was passed, and a change in the rate not only for those men but also for those that are taken off and restored. In most of the discussions, as far as I know, no one has advocated a change in the principles upon which the new law and regulations are based. I take it that the service organizations feel that the underlying principles of the new regulations are sound, and that we are all proceeding with the thought of establishing a compensation or pension roll-no matter what we may call it-upon a sound basis, and that that roll should be an honor roll. The President, by numerous changes in regulations since the original act was passed, and following a consistent study of the regulations originally put into effect, has materially liberalized the original act. All of those things contended for, with the exception of the point in the Legion's program which would provide benefits for widows and children of World War men who die of disabilities not due to service, can in my judgment be handled by the President under regulations. It is too early at this time to reach the conclusion that some of those men who have been taken off by the special boards or by the boards of the Veterans' Administration will not go on the rolls after their final appeal to the Appeal Board here in Washington. The group of Spanish War veterans contending for entirely different treatment, in that they ask to be placed with the Civil War and Indian War veterans and that a flat cut be provided for them, of course would require legislation. However, the President has authority, if he sodesires, by increasing the rates, to overcome, I think, most of the difficulties under which that group is laboring. We feel that the principles upon which the new act was founded, and the principles embodied in the new regulations, are sound and should be maintained. The President has directed that we continue the study which is going on, and has from the very beginning, of any changes which may be found necessary to eliminate inequalities or to do greater justice. in the individual case. Involved in the first point of the American Legion would be the reestablishment of rates under what we call the 1925 rating table. That table takes in account the pre-war occupation of the veteran, so that two men with the same disability would draw different rates of compensation or pension. We have felt that neither in the eyes of the veteran nor in the eyes of the public can you ever satisfy the question as to why two veterans with the same disability should draw different rates of pension. When we take into account also the fact that we spent something like $644,918,000 in vocational rehabilitation with a view of assisting these men in overcoming their handicap in their pre-war occupations due to their war-service disability, it would seem to me that there is little argument for establishing again the rating table with the pre-war occupation taken into account. We feel that the 1933 table, based upon the average impairment in a given group of civil occupations, is the fair table. The change to the 1925 rating schedule of course would involve a considerable increase in cost so far as the two tables are concerned. I have some examples, and will give them to the committee. The proposition as to whether we should restore all of the men who were on the rolls on March 20, 1933, in my judgment, is one which should be approached with great care. We endeavored to have the presumptive cases carefully reviewed by special boards made up of three outside members and two members of the Veterans' Administration. Those boards were designed to give the men an opportunity of proving whether they should or should not stay on the roll. After all, the contention made here has to do with a comparatively small group; but in order that you may see exactly what that group is, I should like first to give the committee the results of the review of all these cases by the Veterans' Administration, so that you may see just how many veterans we are concerned with, and the character, in a way, of the cases. We must realize, too, that in discussing the question at this time there is no certainty but that a number of cases that are now off the rolls on appeal, with the development of the case, will come back on the rolls. Senator RUSSELL. General Hines, if it will not disturb you, a great deal has been said here about the discrepancy in the number of veterans who are allowed service connection. In North Carolina for example, 74 percent have been allowed, and in Pennsylvania I believe only 23 or 24 percent. General HINES. I will cover that, Mr. Chairman. Before I take up the question of the special boards I think it would be helpful to the committee if I gave you the result of the review. The table which I am referring to can be placed in the record if you desire to have it there. Senator RUSSELL. We should like to have it incorporated in the record. |