THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hon. Toм MURRAY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MURRAY: Reference is made to the President's proposal to raise the salaries of Federal employees to bring them in line with salary rates in private enterprise. Our association strongly favors this legislation, and urges your vigorous support of it. We would like this letter made a part of your file in this matter. It is good that the executive branch recognizes there are inequities existing in the present Federal employees' pay scale, and we earnestly hope the Congress will approve this long overdue adjustment in the present hodgepodge pay scale system of the Federal Government. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER, Jr., President, the National Labor Relations Board Professional Association. LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO., Sunnyvale, Calif., June 1, 1962. Hon. Toм MURRAY, Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MURRAY: As an industrial member of the Defense Science Board I am deeply impressed with the tremendous responsibilities placed upon Government employees charged with assuring the defense of the United States, particularly upon those in the top category. As the head of an industrial firm privileged to play a significant role in the development of complex space and weapons systems, I am keenly aware of the growing importance of technology in the defense effort of our Nation. It is obvious, I believe, that our Government leaders charged with establishing the broad policy of and the implementation of the defense program must be capable of understanding the implications of our modern science and technology. Further, these gentlemen should have readily available to them expert, specialized, technical advice from within the Government itself. The executive committee of the Defense Science Board has been privileged to review both the "Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development," dated April 30, 1962, and the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962. Both documents recognize the importance of providing Government salaries sufficient to attract and retain qualified technical and scientific personnel for the full and knowledgeable execution of the Government's responsibilities. As a member of the Defense Science Board, I believe it very urgent to improve, especially in the higher salary grades, the salaries paid to scientific and technical employees. Enactment of H.R. 10480, a bill to reform the major statutory salary systems of the Federal Government, would be appropriate. The subject of appropriate compensation for Federal Government employees has a direct bearing upon the future ability of our Government to continue the effective conduct of its affairs in the constantly expanding scientific and technical areas of interest. If there is any way in which I may assist in the serious consideration of this important matter, I would be most honored to do so. Sincerely, L. EUGENE Roor, President. 84357-62-pt. 1-46 Hon. Toм MURRAY, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., New York, N.Y., June 7, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MURRAY: I have studied with interest the President's proposal for reform of Federal statutory salary systems (H.R. 10480). I strongly support the purposes that this proposal is designed to achieve. There has long been need for a Federal white-collar compensation system that willAdjust to market rates for particular skills. React to changes in the general economy. Maintain internal alinement. Provide flexibility to accommodate individual worth. Provide flexibility to meet unusual environmental and work situations. The proposal would do much to accomplish these compensation needs. Over a 3-year period it would increase Federal salaries to levels more nearly competitive with those paid by private industry. Of particular importance, are the increase provided for the top pay grades and although relatively few positions are involved, it is essential that extremely competent individuals be attracted to such positions. The proposed bill would improve internal pay relationships by providing more meaningful differences in salary ranges between successive grade levels of positions and by providing more flexibility for within-grade increases to reward outstanding performance. When the Defense Advisory Committee on Professional and Technical Compensation, of which I was Chairman, was studying this subject from April 1956 to June 1958, it was noted that the turnover of skilled manpower was increasing, quality was decreasing, and that many positions remained unfilled. The committee concluded that the basic cause of these problems was the Federal civilian compensation system. Especially critical were the pay levels provided for the higher career skills, both professional and managerial. I believe that the reforms now incorporated in H.R. 10480 are necessary and are overdue. If enacted, they will greatly strengthen the Government's ability to attract, retain, and provide incentive for the competent civilian, professional and managerial employees it needs. The Nation cannot afford anything less. Very truly yours, Hon. Toм MURRAY, RALPH J. CORDINER, Chairman of the Board. DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS, Philadelphia, Pa., June 7, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Remembering my friendly contacts with you during the period when I was General Counsel of the Department of Defense in the years 1957-59, and knowing of your great interest in the question of proper salaries for employees of the Federal Government, I am taking the liberty of writing this letter to you in my present capacity as an interested citizen. The subject which leads me to write is the proposal by the President in his message dated February 20, 1962, in connection with salary increases for employees in the Federal service. Of course, my particular contact with this question was in the Department of Defense and as a result of that contact. I know that the securing of fully qualified people to fill important positions was rendered extremely difficult by the inequality between the salaries which could be offered them in Government service and the salaries which they were able to command in industry. This difficulty was particularly striking in the field of people technically qualified with scientific and research abilities, but the same difficulty existed in other important portions of the Department of Defense. I remember particular instances where our Department of Defense employees went into the field to do planning or to check up on progress of important projects, and found themselves in the company of employees of industry who were no better qualified than the Government people but whose compensation was on considerably higher levels. There is, of course, satisfaction in the feeling that one is working for the United States and there are some retirement and other advantages which go along with salary, but our experience in many instances was that the differential between Government pay and the amount available in private employ was so great that it was extremely difficult to fill properly, important positions in the Government. I know that your committee has this matter strongly in mind. I have determined to write this letter only with the thought that you might be interested in hearing from one who has had relatively recent Government experience. Most sincerely, Hon. Toм MURRAY, ROBERT DECHERT. NEW YORK, N.Y., May 17, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR SIR: I have read with interest the President's message to the Congress of February 20 relative to salary increases for Federal service employees. I served for 3 years with President Eisenhower's administration as General Counsel of the Department of Defense and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Therefore, I was in a position to become intimately familiar with the problems of recruiting and retaining top quality personnel for career service in that Department, which I know is also of similar moment to other agencies of the executive branch. Certainly the magnitude of the administration and worldwide problems of the United States are such that we cannot ever be staffed by second-rate personnel. It is doubtful that the Government will ever be able to compete with private industry for topflight men and women solely on the basis of compensation. There is the added incentive, in the case of people who desire to work for the Government, in the fact that they are performing a vital service to their country. Nevertheless, adequate salary schedules and promotional opportunities must be available in order to provide the necessary monetary incentives. I strongly support the President's recommendations and certainly hope that your committee will report a bill along the lines of the President's statement. Sincerely, Hon. Toм MURRAY, MANSFIELD D. SPRAGUE. AEROJET-GENERAL CORP., Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MURRAY: We recommend that your committee support the administration's civilian pay reform bill. As a defense contractor for the past 20 years, we have observed the increasing complexity of weapons and space systems which requires the most competent management personnel that the Government can obtain. Unfortunately, we have seen many of these top quality civilian service employees leave the Government for more lucrative positions in industry. This turnover results in substantial loss to the Government, delays in defense programs, and prevents a continuity in management of longrange technical programs which is so essential to success. The proposed civilian pay reform bill, which is an attempt to equalize Government pay scales with those of industry, should enable the Government to retain more of the top Government management personnel. We particularly wish to endorse the proposed differentials for the employees in the higher salary grades. It is in this area that the Government structure is most vulnerable in our opinion. We strongly recommend that your committee take favorable action on this bill. Sincerely yours, DAN A. KIMBALL, President. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Hon. Toм MURRAY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Washington, D.C., May 7, 1962. Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, DEAR MR. MURRAY: I have studied with great care the President's proposal for reform of the Federal statutory salary systems embodied in H.R. 10480. As you know, although the Agency is exempted by statute from the provisions of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, we have adhered to the classification schedules in that act in the salary and personnel programs of the Agency. Therefore, the Agency is concerned with and vitally interested in efforts to improve pay administration generally within the Federal Government. The underlying objectives of the President's proposal in part are stated by defining the functions of a public salary system which are to control payroll expenditures with equity to both the employee and the taxpayer and to support recruitment and retention of the high quality personnel required to carry out Government programs. These objectives are, of course, basic objectives in the Agency's salary administration program. The comparability principle and the flexibility in the proposed legislation are significant forward-looking improvements in the Federal pay system. I believe that enactment of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 would exert a strong force for improved management in the Federal service generally. Therefore, I would like to convey to you my strong endorsement of this legislation and urge its enactment by the Congress. Sincerely, JOHN A. MCCONE, Director. CHAMPION PAPERS, Hon. Toм MURRAY, Knightsbridge, Hamilton, Ohio, May 17, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, MY DEAR MR. MURRAY: I am much interested in H.R. 10480, dealing with reformation of the Federal statutory salary systems. Having served extensively in several positions in the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense, I am convinced that all necessary steps should be taken to assure that the proper climate is created so that people of the requisite high degree of ability will entertain the merits of serving their country and actually enter upon such service in the high and near-high positions in the Federal Government. As time passes, the complexities of the responsibilities of these positions are becoming more onerous and demand an ever-increasing higher level of attainment and discernment. Obviously, persons possessed of the proper qualifications cannot be obtained for these positions on a sustained basis unless the rewards flowing therefrom, monetarily and otherwise, compare favorably with those afforded by private enterprise and other walks of life. While I have not had an opportunity to study the bill, I heartily agree with its general objectives. I write to urge you to support the bill or other appropriate remedial action. With every good wish. Sincerely, Hon. CARL ALBERT, KARL R. BENDETSEN, President. GRAND JUNCTION, COLO., May 15, 1962. Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN ALBERT: Some weeks ago I was interested in your comment on Washington conversation with Paul Nevin to the effect that as a young lad one of the most welcome sights in your neighborhood was that of the mailman coming down the road with a fancy horse, and how you always envied him. That mailman is looking to you now for a little more salary with which to feed that horse; i.e., the passage of H.R. 9531, the Postal Employees Salary Act of 1962. This bill, which apparently was made a part of H.R. 10480 (as title III) now being considered by the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, should have the committee's consideration not as a part of this legislation but as a measure unto itself, H.R. 9531. I have always felt that any employee asking for a raise should have something with which to support his request. At the present time, our postal employees are handling 13 times as much mail as they handled in 1890, but the Post Office Department is doing it with less than 6 times as many employees. Thus, over the years there has been a remarkable increase in productivity. The Postmaster General tells us that the number of pieces of mail handled by the Department since 1940 has increased 128 percent, while the number of postal employees has increased only 59 percent. The efficiency of our postal employee has increased 69 percent during the past 20 years. Statistics tell us that it takes an annual income of around $6,320 to domicile, feed, clothe, and educate an average size American family of four. The average yearly wage of a postal clerk is $4,853. Employees in private industry performing the same type of work receive an average annual salary of around $5,800 a difference of almost $1,000 a year. But the cost of living is the same for all. Would you not find it extremely difficult to meet present-day living costs with an average monthly take-home pay of only $300? This is just subsistence, what happens when there is an emergency-the postal employee's family just does not have sufficient income to meet unusual circumstances, much less be able to put a little aside for advanced age and retirement. None of us with pride want to become dependent upon society or an obligation upon our Government in old age. Postal employees are merely asking for more equitable compensation for duties performed. They are hopefully asking for a salary base that will allow them a fair standard of living and, with luck, permit them to set a little aside for the future. During the year 1960, 87,440 employees left the postal service. The training of replacements for these men—at approximately $800 a person-represents a considerable sum in the Post Office budget-approximately $70 million a year. In Denver, Colo., there were 355 separations in the clerk-carrier force over the last 6 months of 1961. This would mean an annual figure of 710. An enormous percentage of the total clerk force in a city of this size. I believe, too, that pay distinctions under the Classification Act, should be made more in keeping with the work performed and the quality of performance. There should be greater incentive for employees to want to prepare themselves for more responsibility, and there should be more flexible use of salary steps to recognize exceptional achievement. Private industry places much emphasis on merit increases for encouraging capable employees. The Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service is presently conducting hearings on the postal rate increase bill, H.R. 7927, passed by the House. I certainly do believe the postal deficit must be reduced. It is only good commonsense that any Government agency, be it the Post Office Department, the Department of Agriculture, or the legislative, etc., should operate in the interest of the taxpayers. But there are many services rendered by our postal employees for which the Department receives no revenue whatsoever. A more realistic picture of postal services related to postal revenues should be made available to Members of Congress and the public generally. At the time of its introduction, H.R. 9531 had the strong support of 18 Members of the House who introduced identical bills. It is very possible that more Members have recently been added to this list. Senator Magnuson has introduced a companion bill, S. 3029, in the Senate. I am confident that after you have examined the facts concerning this legislation, you as majority whip will enlist the support of your colleagues in the House and do everything within your discretion to give the measure your full support. Sincerely yours, VEVA F. WEEN, State Vice President, Women's Auxiliary to the Colorado |