Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Federal bureaucracy, which I commend you for, you still have 5 months from the time somebody says, “I do want to be a Government inspector" until he is starting his training.

I understand the necessity for training time and you can debate how much of this is given now or later, but it seems to me that 5 months, and I realize that compared to other Federal standards, that 5 months is probably a record. But we have an unusual situation here, wildcat strikes are going on, people have grievances about safety, and we see coal mining operations shut down.

Wouldn't that indicate that something better than 5 months is called for to get a fellow who says, “I can,” and I am not talking training time. I am talking about until he starts as an employee of the Federal Government. There is a 5-month lapse.

Isn't there some way we can shorten that up? I know you are doing good by other standards, but it seems to me we have a real emergency in this country in our mines. We have bitter divisiveness over this issue. we have coal mine operations stop, we have power shortages.

Doesn't that merit something better than 5 months?

Mr. Dole. Senator Schweiker, I have only been back here a little over a year and a half myself, and I asked these very same questions. and I think you might as well get the answers from the people who gave me the answers, so I will refer you to Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Westfield.

Mr. WHEELER. When you say 5 months, I assume you are talking about from the time that he takes the examination until he reports to work, because that is the only time that would take anything like 5 months. It takes us about a month and a half to get him after we decide we want to hire him.

This means writing to him, taking a physical examination, giving his previous employers some amount of notice, and cleaning up his personal affairs. And normally that takes about a month and a half, from a month to a month and a half.

We have cut that down.

Now, at the suggestion of one of the committee staff, we have desig. nated one of our top people in the Bureau of Mines personnel office to look over our shoulder, in effect-look over Jim Westfield's shoulder, and give me a weekly report on the progress that we are making toward getting these new inspectors on board. He works with the Civil Service Commission, and I can't understand the 5 months. I don't believe it takes 5 months even from the time that the examination is taken, although it may.

There is a grading process involved, and this is done by the Civil Service Commission. They have expedited the thing at our request.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I would like to read from your press release again, if I may. It says here:

Five months are required from the time the person takes the coal mine inspero tor examination before he can be hired. This is to integrate the examination, rate the candidate, place him in his proper position on the register, run him through medical examinations, notice to current employers.

And so forth.

I am not criticizing that at all. Fellows, these are your statements. they are not mine.

Mr. WHEELER. I think the important thing to keep in mind is, and I think these figures that you cited here this morning indicate that we are accelerating all these things. It doesn't take as long as it did a few months ago to get these people hired. It does not take as long as it did a few months ago to get these people trained.

We are cutting corners all the time and reducing these things as fast as we can.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Is there anything we as a committee can do to help you do some of this? I recognize you do have problems, like (ivil Service. Can we make a special plea in any way to make an exemption, or special priority, because I recognize you have problems there, and I may not be able to suggest something now. But I think if you follow, have some suggestions, this committee would be very receptive to going to the Civil Service people and waiving a few things so you fellows cannot have to go through all that rigermarole.

Mr. DOLE. I might comment that you are doing plenty to help us right now through this meeting.

Senator SCHWEIKER Along the same line of questioning, what basic requirements other than passing a test do you look for? Is the testing the primary criterion ? Must he be a college graduate, must they have mine experience?

Mr. WESTFIELD. Basically, the present civil service examination for coal mine inspectors, they have to have a basic 5 years' experience in the coal mines. Other than that, there is no basic educational training. They are given credit for education, but this is not necessary that a man be a college man or whether he has anything besides being able to read and write, as long as he is able to pass this examination, and this examination is based on his knowledge of safety.

Senator SCHWEIKER. So you are saying there are really two criteria: 5 years in the mines, and he must pass a test.

Mr. WESTFIELD. He must pass a test. That is correct. Then he has to pass a physical examination to be hired. It is a very arduous job, and the physical requirements are very tough on this, although we have had, I would sav--and I am getting the number now—somewhere around 15 percent of them turned down on the physical.

Senator SCHWEIKER. What advertising are you doing for these? In other words, what recruitment approaches are you using?

Mr. WHEELER. We use radio announcements in all the areas. We have used advertisements in all the papers in the areas in which the examinations are given, and as Mr. Dole indicated, we are considering TV spots with pleas being made to these people to take the examinations, including people who are not supervisors.

This is something that was spoken about here this morning. It is not a requirement for a man to be a foreman in order to be qualified as an inspector. We would like to get more mine sa fety committeemen, for example, to take the examination.

Senator SCHWEIKER. We are paying, I see, starting from $9,881 for GS-9 up to $14,192. Is that accurate?

Mr. WHEELER. That is right.

Senator SCHWEIKER. What does a coal miner who has 5 years of experience and has average ability, what is he earning today?

Mr. WHEELER. Well, I will let Jim answer that for you.

Mr. WESTFIELD. I am not too well acquainted witht the rates miners get at the present time. I would say somewhere around $35 a day for an 8-hour day for a coal mine.

A foreman, I do not know what his salary is.

Senator SCHWEIKER. It seems to me it would be pretty relevant. If I am going out and need a top priority group of people I would like to know what my competition is and what I have to pay.

Mr. WHEELER. We are competitive, Senator.

Senator SCHWEIKER. You say you are competitive. That is what I am trying to find out.

Mr. WHEELER. And we have even been instrumental in the wages of a number of section foremen and foremen going up in the mines

, because companies have been willing to pay them more in order to keep them from coming to work for us, which is all right, because they need them, too.

So we are competitive.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I guess you have the figures in your statement as to how many recruits you have received so far. I think, Secretary Dole, you said that in your statement, didn't you? I forget what page that is on.

Mr. WHEELER. Well, we have 250 in the process now of taking physical examinations and otherwise getting themselves ready.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I want to be fair and say that I recognize that is not an easy job. Coming from Pennsylvania, I know it is not easy to recruit people and train them, but I wonder if we are doing every; thing possible, because there is a virtual emergency in this area, and I hope we are all aware of that.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.
Mr. Blackwell will ask questions.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Dole, or whichever member of the panel is considered appropriate, three questions on the meeting to which Mr. Yablonski's request to attend was not favorably acted upon-in fact, he received a negative, and was invited to a subsequent and separate meeting

Who said "No," to Mr. Yablonski's request to attend that meeting, which individual, which official ?

Mr. DOLE. I would like to have the chairman of the committee. Mr. Gershuny, speak to that question.

Mr. GERSHUNY. Mr. Blackwell, I believe, if memory serves, that Mr. Yablonski was notified in two different ways, because of the lateness of the request.

As I recall, I had personally called him at a Washington law firm whose phone number he had left with me, and I told him by phone. This was, I believe, on a Friday. I advised him that there would be

, a letter of confirmation sent out to him, and my recollection is that that letter was sent out over the signature of Secretary Dole on Saturday.

Mr. BLACKWELL. What was the basis of denying Mr. Yablonski's request to attend this meeting?

Mr. GERSHUNY. Well, there were several factors, Mr. Blackwell. First of all, the meetings that were established had been set up spe. cifically to consider concrete recommendations which the Bureau had received from the operator associations. It was going to be a par

ticularly technical meeting. The purpose was to elicit candid views from the major segments of the industry and major representatives of labor.

It was not intended to be any sort of a public hearing in which the entire public would be invited. It was a work session and the representatives of the mineworkers were invited because they had an established and recognized safety office. They were the certified bargaining agent of large numbers of miners, and to be absolutely candid, we felt that the request that we had received from Mr. Yablonski would frustrate the purpose of the meetings, because it would serve to merely pinpoint the internal politics of the mineworkers, and we did not want to allow the meeting to be changed in its course from a work session to a meeting which could be used, or might be used, as a means to highlight the internal problems within the union.

Now, I should point out something that I think is extremely important. We tried to be absolutely fair to the group which was represented by Mr. Yablonski. We had made available to him all of the recommendations that we had received, and as I

Mr. BLACKWELL. Excuse me, Mr. Gershuny. I believe you have answered my question up to a point. May I ask this: A published report at the time stated that one of the reasons for Mr. Yablonski's not being invited was that Interior felt his presence might lead the UMW representatives to walk out of the meeting.

Is that included in your response respecting the frustration of the meeting which you have already commented on?

Mr. GERSHUNY. I think it was.

Mr. BLACKWELL. The final question is, would you in similar circumstances invite Mr. Yablonski to the next such meeting, or will you apply again the reasoning and the policy you applied in the past case, or perhaps I should direct that to Mr. Dole.

Mr. DOLE. I would say, in answer to that question, that we will view each situation as it comes up, and we would take such action which we believe would give us the greatest input, and the greatest information, and the greatest service.

Mr. BLACKWELL. If this situation arises again, are you saying that you would have the same policy in denying Mr. Yablonski attendance?

Mr. DOLE. No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that we would take it and view it and make a decision in the light of matters at that time.

Mr. BLACKWELL. The most you are saying is that he might be invited at the next meeting, then?

Mr. DOLE. I think that there is some misunderstanding here. There is a lot of difference between a closed meeting and meeting in which people are invited, where we have meetings on offshore and some of these that have to deal with land problems. Some of them have to do with the machinery, the engineering.

People are certainly welcome to come to any of these meetings, but we would hope that the people that we would invite would be those that would have the greatest expertise and could make the greatest input so that we could come out with the best decision possible within the Department.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, the obvious character of this, Mr. Dole, is that a policy which invites attendance by the press to a meeting to which a particular individual who represents miners and is concerned

a

with safety and health, invites the press and denies the other individual admittance is a questionable policy.

We will leave the record at that.

Mr. Russell. The meetings belong to the purpose. They are not designed to provide everybody an opportunity to serve purposes other than the meeting.

Mr. BLACKWELL. It is clear to me that Mr. Yablonski's request was to participate in accordance with the purposes designated by the Department. His request was to participate under your purposes.

Mr. RUSSELL. And his request was granted by the scheduling of such a meeting for that purpose.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, a second meeting would hardly meet the needs of that, sir. I was at the meeting, and I heard the dialogue, and without a transcript of the dialogue of the first meeting, individuals meeting subsequently and separately would be greatly handicapped.

Mr. Dole. This could very well be, but once again I go back to the comment that the decisions on these are going to be ours, and we make them. We get our information from many sources.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you, sir.
Senator WILLIAMS. I think that covers it.

We have reached a point where I would like to make an observation, that probably we could have anticipated that we would be into detail, deeply involved in detail, and we did anticipate it, but there are four or five major areas that remain for discussion here: the inspection program was covered in the dialogue that came up this morning. I personally wanted to talk further about the methods of fixing penalties, and the partial but representative inspections, the spot inspections, and the policy on that, and, indeed, the handling of the Virginia case in Abingdon.

I am going to suggest to my colleagues that we terminate and ask you at a later time to come back, gentlemen, because we do have people who have come from other States, and we must get to them yet this afternoon.

Senator Randolph?

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, I think that is a preferable way. Those who are now at the witness table are in a position to return, given proper notice, and discuss these matters with us. Is that correct?

Mr. RUSSELL. We would be glad to.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is the way we will have to do it to discharge our responsibility; with our great apologies to Dr. Peterson for holding the doctor and his associates from HEW, and we appreciate your cooperation.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, with no criticism whatsoever, because I do it in the Public Works Committee-it is done in all committees—but this is the time for observations.

We attempt to schedule too many witnesses. We ought to have more days and less witnesses on a specific day.

Mr. RUSSELL. Also, alternately, too, if you would prefer, we would be very glad to respond to written question that you might have, if you would prefer that.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, that might be something we will consider, and I was going to mention it. Possibly the areas we want to explore

« PreviousContinue »