tween the various salary levels. Public Law 84-68, enacted in 1955, was the first real attempt at a complete salary reclassification. Supervisory salaries were not made comparable with salaries in industry at that time, however, as it would have meant a very substantial increase in each supervisory salary level to attain true comparability. Salary increases since 1955, based on percentage increases, have restored at least a semblance of salary differential between the supervisor and those he supervises. H.R. 11049 would now increase the dollar differential in the lower salary levels and decrease it in the supervisory levels. The latest trend in this direction came with the enactment of Public Law 87-793. The following examples will highlight the story:

Salary differentials between the top steps of the various levels

Although we do not desire to downgrade or degrade any position, we are certain that the distinguished members of this committee will agree that, if the salary differential between a janitor and an elevator operator has been increased from $285 to $435, and if the differential between a clerk or carrier and a mail handler is $495, the salary differential between the first-line supervisor and those supervised by him should be at least $600-and certainly more than only $365. The firstline supervisory level definitely needs an upward adjustment, as do other management levels.

Another glaring inequity in the present salary schedule, and proposed in H.R. 11049, is the provision granting six annual step increases to employees in the first six levels, but only three to postal supervisors, postmasters, regional employees, postal inspectors, and others in levels 7 and higher. Employees in the latter groups must spend 2 years in steps 4, 5, and 6 before advancing to the next step. Before enactment of Public Law 87-793, the House committee voted overwhelmingly to extend 1-year step increases to all levels. The Senate committee discussed doing the same, but because of opposition by the Post Office Department at that time, an amendment was defeated by a narrow margin. Although the original bill (H.R. 8986) approved by

the House committee last fall again contained this provision, H.R. 11049 does not.

Assistant Postmaster General Richard J. Murphy, in reply to a question by Senator Fong regarding the inequities caused by this discrimination against postal supervisors, admitted that there are many inequities and promised to furnish the committee with some examples. We are certain that, after you examine the examples, you will agree that this phase of H.R. 11049 needs an immediate adjustment.

Assuming that H.R. 11049 is enacted effective July 1964, without extending 1-year step increases to all levels, the following table describes graphically how the salary differential between supervisor and nonsupervisor will be reduced:

In addition to the rapidly narrowing gap, if employee A is promoted in 1968, he will go to step 7 of level 7 and receive $410 more than the senior supervisor, who remains in step 5, and must spend 2 years in step 6 before reaching step 7 in 1971. This inequity can be overcome by the following amendment:

Section 3552 (e) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: “(a)(1) Each employee of the postal field service schedule and each employee subject to the rural carrier schedule who has not reached the highest step for his position shall be advanced successively to the next higher step as follows:

"(A) To steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7—at the beginning of the first pay period following the completion of fifty-two calendar weeks of satisfactory service; and

"(B) To steps 8 and above at the beginning of the first pay period following the completion of one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of satisfactory service.

"(2) The receipt of an equivalent increase during any of the waiting periods specified in this subsection shall cause a new full waiting period to commence for further step increases."

The Post Office Department formerly opposed the extension of 1year step increases to all levels on the premise that postal supervisors and others in level 7 and higher would receive benefits denied employees under the classification act. We must point out many differences which exist even now between these two pay schedules:

1. All employees under the classification act have the same standard method of advancement from the lowest grade to the top grade.

2. Prior to Public Law 87-793, all postal employees advanced at 1year intervals, while class act employees in some grades were advanced at 18-month intervals. Only postal supervisors and others in levels 7 and higher in steps 4, 5, and 6 had their step increase intervals increased from 1 year to 2 years by Public Law 87-793.

3. Class act employees in supervisory levels receive overtime payments at the rate of time and one-half through grade 9, and those

above grade 9 may be paid overtime at the time and one-half rate for grade 9 employees. Postal supervisors above level 7 receive no overtime payments.

4. Class act employees may be advanced much more rapidly than supervisors in the postal field service. This can easily be seen by the fact that in the postal field service only 45,151 employees or 9.4 percent are in levels 7 and higher while under the class act, 404,446 employees or 42 percent are in grades 7 and higher. The majority of postal supervisors and postmasters do not progress beyond level 7.

The Post Office Department estimates the cost of this amendment. at $1.8 million. Since the cost of H.R. 11049 is estimated at $533 million and the President, in his budget message, has requested $544 million for salary comparability, this small amount could easily be absorbed.

Section 114 on page 24 of H.R. 11049 needs further clarification since the language is subject to many interpretations. This section grants the Postmaster General authorization to advance any employee in PFS level 9 or below who was promoted to a higher level between July 9, 1960, and October 13, 1962, if he is senior in respect to total postal service to an employee in his own office promoted to the same position since October 13, 1962, and is at a step in the level below the step of the junior employee.

We suggest that paragraph (d) be rewritten by striking out "is authorized to" and substituting "shall" on lines 7 and 8, and by striking out in paragraph (2) the word "position" on line 14 and substituting "level."

The reason for the first change is to make mandatory the stepadvancement of the senior employee who was promoted sooner than the junior employee. The second change is important since the senior employee may be in the same salary level as the junior employee but will be denied the step increase if he is not in exactly the same position. The employee in the same position level should all receive equal treat

ment.

Middle-level compression is something that has been discussed by administration spokesmen, but no suggestions have been made to alleviate this compression. Studies of the BLS figures show that in the PFS schedule, H.R. 11049, the first five levels are closely comparable with salaries in industry, but begin to show a big difference beginning with level 6 (212 percent below salaries in industry for comparable position) and increasing through levels 7, 8, and 9 (all 3.4 percent below salaries in industry) with level 10 5 percent lower and increasing from there through the higher levels. We respectfully urge this committee to grant adjustments in these levels to bring them in line with true comparability.

We all know that Public Law 87-793 was based on comparability with salaries in industry as well as equal pay for equal duties and responsibilities. Although our statement-in order to expedite these hearings is necessarily brief, we could point out many instances where comparability does not apply to the middle and higher levels. We hope that the committee will report a bill based as nearly as possible on true comparability and we also hope that the inequities to which we refer in our statement will be removed from the present law and the proposed House bill.

To best illustrate how the principle of comparability is destroyed by H.R. 11049, a look at the following chart will show how the supervisors in the first supervisory levels, in spite of their additional responsibility, receive much less dollarwise and percentagewise than those supervised by them:

There is no place in industry where we find greater increases going to employees with lesser responsibility.

Our association strongly supports the congressional salary adjustment. We feel that it is long overdue and that it should be made more realistic as soon as possible. We know that if your constituents were in as close contact with you as we are, they, too, would agree unanimously that there should be an upward adjustment in your salaries immediately. They would wonder how so many good people can be found who are willing to make such sacrifices with comparatively little reimbursement when all factors are taken into consideration. Our members are letting their relatives, friends, and neighbors know that a congressional salary increase is not only deserved, but necessary.

Thank you very much for the opportunity of appearing before you and presenting our views.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for coming before us this morning and giving us this information and pointing out the desires of yourself and your association.

As you know, and I think you pointed out in your statement. Postmaster General Murphy has also been requested to give certain information to us along this line. We are hoping to get that now by Monday.

Mr. JASPAN. I understand he has already compiled the information and it should be in the hands of the committee soon. We were told that yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have it in. I am informed. by Monday.

Mr. JASPAN. He also pointed out the inequities resulting from the increase in one level caused by this discrimination against postal supervisors and promised to furnish the committee with some samples. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement and your additional comments.

Are there any questions by members of the staff?

Mr. PASCHAL. On the amendment you emphasized in one particular, have you any wording for such an amendment that you are submitting?

Mr. JASPAN. Yes. Mr. Paschal. I will read it to you:

Section 3552 (a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"(a) (1) Each employee of the Postal Field Service Schedule and each employee subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule who has not reached the highest

step for his position shall be advanced successively to the next higher step as follows:

"(A) To steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7-at the beginning of the first pay period following the completion of fifty-two calendar weeks of satisfactory service; and

"(B) To steps 8 and above at the beginning of the first pay period following the completion of one hundred and fifty-six calendar weeks of satisfactory service.

"(2) The receipt of an equivalent increase during any of the waiting periods specified in this subsection shall cause a new full waiting period to commence for further step increases.

Mr. PASCHAL. That is the proposal you would like to have?

Mr. JASPEN. Yes, sir. And that would take care of the greatest inequity in the bill.'

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Dr. Gregory K. Hartmann, president of the Federal Professional Association.

We hope you will try to stay within the time, 15 minutes is the limit. We don't want to do that, but we are trying to wind up this little ball today and Monday, if we possibly can.

Dr. HARTMANN. Thank you. I believe we can conserve time if I go through our prepared statement, essentially reading it to you.

STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY K. HARTMANN, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY VINCENT JAY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Dr. HARTMANN. My name is Gregory K. Hartmann, and I am president of the Federal Professional Association, a new organization of career professionals employed in the Federal service.

Accompanying me is Mr. Vincent Jay, past president of the association and currently executive vice president. The Honorable Robert Ramspeck, distinguished former Member of the Congress and now consultant to the association, is unable to be with us today.

The CHAIRMAN. I too regret that the distinguished Mr. Ramspeck could not be with us. I know that his wife is ill.

Dr. HARTMANN. The Federal Professional Association is a voluntary nonprofit organization consisting exclusively of professional employees in the Federal service. It encompasses all disciplines and all agencies. It is dedicated to enhancing the value of the Federal career service to the public fostering high standards of professional service to the Government, and promoting the welfare of Federal career professional personnel, through education, research, and appropriate consultation.

We were incorporated in the District of Columbia, April 30, 1962, and formally established at a founding conference November 28, 1962, at Washington, D.C. Now we are just a year and a half old, the association has a membership of over 600, with local chapters currently active in 10 cities and with more chapters being organized throughout the country.

THE PROBLEM

We are appearing on behalf of career professionals in the Federal service who favor continued congressional support for the principle of comparability of pay between private enterprise and the Federal service. The basic principle that Federal salary rates shall be com