Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. ADDABBO. Does not this constant turnover create a loss to the Government so there is money wasted in training men?

Mr. LANGAN. It costs a great deal of money, but no one can say how much it really costs. It is one of those factors that is very hard to put your finger right on. It costs money to train people, I think we all agree to that. How much it costs there is the point of argument. Mr. GROSS. They probably did not like the climate in Arizona. Mr. ADDABBO. It is a better climate than Washington.

Mr. UDALL. I have a hunch Mr. Gross is not trying to make friends on this committee.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I want to extend my sympathy to the gentleman from Arizona. Apparently both Arizona and Michigan are on the gentleman's blacklist.

Mr. UDALL. We are all being assaulted, and I think some uncomplimentary remarks are going to be made about Arkansas before we get through.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Ross Messer, legislative representative, National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees.

STATEMENT OF ROSS MESSER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Ross A. Messer. I am legislative representative of the National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees, representing the maintenance employees of the postal field service and General Services Administration, with members in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Our national office is located at 724 Ninth Street NW., Washington, D.C.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for your interest in adequate salaries for postal and other Federal employees. I also wish to express our appreciation to Congressman James H. Morrison, and the other members of the committee, who have introduced salary increase proposals.

Many facts and figures have been presented to the committee to justify the need of a salary increase for postal and Federal employees. The cost-of-living increase and the change in living standards have affected the maintenance employees to the same extent it has affected other postal and Federal employees.

The estimated average salary of the full-time post office maintenance employee as of June 30, 1961, was $4,600 per annum. The average salary for the post office maintenance service of $4,600 per annum would provide a gross biweekly take-home pay of $177.60. The deductions of: $11.45 (611⁄2 percent) for retirement; life insurance, $1.25; health insurance, $3.12; Federal income tax, $13.60 (an employee with a wife and two children); leave a net biweekly take-home pay of $148.09, or $74.05 a week.

The average take-home pay of $74.05 per week for maintenance employees does not include city, county, and State taxes, which actually reduced the paycheck to an even greater extent.

The administration has presented material to the committee showing that certain of the higher paid employees' salaries have lagged behind the cost of living, while the salaries of the lower grade employees have exceeded the cost of living. This is true percentagewise. However, I would like to point out that dollarwise, it is a different story.

The average salary of the maintenance service is $120 above the top step of PFS, level 2, $4,480 per annum. This means that all employees in level 1 and all employees in level 2 with less than 18 years. of service are receiving less than the average salary in the maintenance service of $4,600 per annum.

The maintenance service laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1, has received an increase of 46.2 percent since 1950, while the postmaster in New York, N.Y., the highest paid postmaster, has received an increase of 34.1 percent during the same time. Dollarwise, it is an entirely different story. The laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1, has received an increase totaling $1,325 since 1950, while the postmaster in New York, N.Y., the highest paid postmaster, has received increases totaling $4,125. During the 12-year period, the postmaster in New York, N.Y., has received an increasing totaling $2,800 more than the laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1. The increases are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Chairman, in making the above comparison, we do not deny the need of the higher salaried employees for a salary increase. However, we do want to make the point that even though percentagewise the lower salaried employees have received greater percentage increases, dollarwise, it is altogether a different story.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place this association on record as endorsing the general provisions of H.R. 9531, introduced by Congressman James H. Morrison. This bill contains the longevity provisions which were vetoed last year. In addition, it grants a muchneeded salary adjustment for postal employees.

The postal field service schedule, as set forth on page 2 of H.R. 9531, sets forth adequate increases for the employees in levels 1 through 5. However, beginning with level 6, the adjustments do not appear to meet the needs of the employees. Therefore, it is suggested

that consideration be given to substituting enclosure A for postal field service schedule levels 6 through 20. It is requested that enclosure A be made a part of the record.

The administration has gone to great length to stress the fact that wages in Government should be comparable with wages in private. industry where duties are comparable. It has been stated that there are 70 positions which very favorably compare. It seems that comparability should be applied to additional positions.

The salary situation of guards in General Services Administration is one in question. The GSA guards, in many instances, are receiving a lesser salary than janitors, laborers, and cleaners working the same tour of duty. They are also receiving salaries which, in most instances, are considerably lower than that paid guards in private industry.

Classification Act guards are in GS-2, with an entrance salary of $3,500 per annum ($1.60 per hour) and after 6 years advance to $4,130 per annum ($1.90 per hour). Below we are setting forth salaries of guards in private industry, manufacturing and nonmanufacturing, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Average hourly earnings1 for guards in private industry as shown by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, occupational wage surveys

[blocks in formation]

1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and shifts. Classification Act grade for guards, GS-2: $3,500 ($1.69), $3,605 ($1.74), $3,710 ($1.79), $3,815 ($1.84), $3,920 ($1.89), $4,025 ($1.94), $4,130 ($1.99).

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact, as pointed out above showing that guards under the Classification Act are, in most instances, receiving considerably less than guards in private industry, it is respectfully requested that consideration be given to placing Classification Act guards in GS-3, instead of GS-2. This would be in line with the statement of the President that salaries should be comparable where the work is comparable.

I might also point out that most of the guards are family men, and, in many instances, the entire support of their families. These positions are also set aside for veterans only so long as veterans are available and qualified. These employees in GS-2, under the President's proposal, would receive increases of $40 per year on January 1, 1963, January 1, 1964, and January 1, 1965. This additional $120 over a period of 3 years would not, in most instances, place these employees on a par with guards in private industry today.

Mr. Chairman, this association would like to go on record as endorsing H.R. 9935, introduced by Congressman Morrison in the House of Representatives which would provide an increase averaging 13 percent for all Classification Act employees.

It is our belief that the provisions of H.R. 9935 would come nearer meeting the needs of all Classification Act employees.

During previous sessions of the hearings, members of this committee have asked administration witnesses about the justification of wage board employees being paid on a local prevailing rate with other Government employees being paid at a national average. The CPC grades of the Classification Act were abolished in 1955 and the employees placed under wage boards at that time. This resulted in many of the lower paid employees being frozen. This group of employees has not received an increase in pay since 1955, in view of the fact that the salaries at which they were frozen are in excess of the local prevailing rate for their positions.

Congressman Lesinski has introduced H.R. 5981 in the House of Representatives which would grant these frozen-rate employees the amount of the increase of step 3 of the wage board grade to which they are assigned when adjustments are made. Precedence for this type legislation has been enacted in all postal and classification act pay increases since 1950. It would appear that this group of employees, who has not had an increase since 1955, should receive the same consideration as postal and classification act employees who are receiving in excess of the top step of their grade.

It is respect fully requested that consideration be given to including the provisions of H.R. 5981 in any pay bill which this committee might report, so that these frozen-rate wage board employees may receive increases, the same as frozen-rate postal and classification act employees.

Mr. Chairman, this association cannot endorse the proposal submitted by the President and introduced as H.R. 10480 for several reasons. The President's proposal does not, in our opinion, sufficiently adjust the salaries of the employees in the lower levels.

The 1963 increase for employees in level 1, step 1, would be $150, while an employee in step 7 would receive $90. The increase for other levels and steps are accordingly low for all employees in the lower levels, while some employees in the upper brackets would receive in excess of $900.

The 1964 increase would grant employees in PFS level 1, an average increase of $110, while employees in some of the higher levels would receive increases ranging from $900 upward.

The 1965 increase would grant $45 to the employees in level 1, with increases of $1,000 or more for some of the employees in the higher grades.

We object very strenuously to the manner in which longevity credit. would not be allowed for employees in level 6 and above unless they are in the top step of their level. Such a conversion would require many of these employees who are not in the top step to lose $300 of the proposed salary adjustment. For example, an employee recently promoted to level 7, step 1, with 25 years of service, would be assigned to level 7, step 1. This employee is currently receiving a base pay of $5.370, plus $300 longevity, for a total of $5,670. Under

the President's proposal, this employee would receive an increase of $70 to $5,740 per annum on January 1, 1963. There are many other examples similar to this in nature.

Mr. Chairman, the needs for a pay increase among the maintenance employees are very urgent. It is needed now and should not be delayed until 1963, 1964, and 1965.

It is the hope of the maintenance employees that this committee will take immediate action and vote an adequate salary increase for all employees at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to again thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. (Enclosure A, "Proposed Revision," follows:)

ENCLOSURE A

Proposed revision of postal field service schedule-Levels 6 through 20,

[blocks in formation]

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. Messer, we thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. Edward G. Batty, executive secretary, National Society of Federal Engineers, Scientists, and Allied Professionals.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. BATTY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF FEDERAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, AND ALLIED PROFESSIONALS; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL WESLEY, JR., PRESIDENT; AND J. W. RAFFENSPERGER, PRESIDENT-ELECT

Mr. BATTY. I am E. G. Batty, executive secretary, National Society of Federal Engineers, Scientists, and Allied Professionals. I have brought with me the president and the president-elect to explain certain portions of this.

We have prepared, and it has been distributed, a very terse comment on this, realizing this is a very complex situation, and as engineers who are on the job and whose duty it is to study these situations, we ponder as to how you gentlemen will ever go through it. We sympathize with

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »