ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Articles, publications, etc.: 1971__ Communications to: Senator McGee from Andrew J. Biemiller, director of the department Chairman Hampton from Senator McGee dated March 30, 1971; Senator McGee from Raymond Jacobson, director, Bureau of Policies areas. Senator McGee from David Sullivan, general president, Service Employees International Union, dated April 30, 1971; supporting S. 231_.. Senator McGee from Joseph Curran, president, National Maritime Union of America dated May 7, 1971; statement on S. 231_____ Selected tables and charts: Page 180 119 183 183 209 255 255 125-126 Coordinated Federal wage system, Chicago, Ill., February 1970 127 128 Comparative rates of pay for truckdrivers in the Chicago area be- 129 131-133 Annex I(b)-Coordinated Federal wage system wage area; San Francisco, Calif., September-October 1970... 134-136 Annex I(c)-Coordinated Federal wage system by area; Washington, Total number of employees and their average pay in the classified service, the postal field service and the wage board system; June 30, 1969 156 210 Wage increases for 68 major wage areas throughout the United 218 219 Veterans' Administration laundry worker rate changes; Chicago, Ill.. WAGE BOARD LEGISLATION MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1971 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in the auditorium of the New Senate Office Building, Senator Gale W. McGee (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators McGee, Stevens, Moss, Burdick, Bellmon, Randolph, Fong, and Hollings. Staff members present: David Minton, staff director and counsel; Clyde DuPont, minority counsel; Richard G. Fuller, and Dan Doherty, professional staff members. The CHAIRMAN. The committee hearing will come to order. Senator Fong has just sent word that he will be a moment or two late. He is in an appropriations hearing at this time, where I am supposed to be too, but we try to cover both fronts, so he is covering for me there while I try to cover for him here for just a short time. He will be here shortly, but we will now get underway. We are not without observing that I think we should have held this in J.F.K. Stadium. [Applause.] It is noteworthy also that on this Monday morning eight of our nine committee members are present and accounted for. I think that is an enviable record for any committee on a Monday morning early in the session. OPENING STATEMENT This hearing is convened to hear testimony on wage board legislation. If it is true, as some say, that "third time is charm," then we are due to be charmed. Because this is the third time this committee has conducted hearings and acted on a piece of legislation to revise the wage board pay system. In 1967, we reported out, and the Senate unanimously passed S. 2302. But the House of Representatives was apparently not ready to act at that time, and the bill died in committee over there. We did manage to salvage the Monroney amendment, out of the 90th Congress, but administrative interpretations and bureaucratic efforts to destroy that law have delayed its proper implementation in many cases. In 1970, this committee reported out, and the Senate again unanimously passed, a second wage board bill; and that bill, H.R. 17809, was sent to the President for his approval. It was tailored to achieve his approval. As a matter of fact-and no one knows this better than the witness before us this morning, John Griner that bill was so tailored to meet the approval of the incumbent (1) administration that it no longer bore much resemblance to the wage board legislation it was originally designed to be. We had pared it to the bone; cut the steps from 10 down to four; circumscribed the wage surveys for PX and BX employees; and time and again met other criticisms of the White House, the Defense Department, the Civil Service Commission, or the Budget Bureau, in order to insure its enactment. And it was vetoed. Vetoed-the President wrote in his message disapproving the bill— because a wage board system "already exists." Well, you know that. That's why hundreds of wage board employees are here this morning. Vetoed the President said-because it had "costly and unwarranted pay features" and would "fuel the fires of inflation.' Maybe you didn't know that. Maybe the 800,000 Federal employees in the various trades and crafts of the Government, pipefitters, janitors, carpenters, maintenance, engineers-maybe they didn't know that a 4-percent wage increase for them was merely fuel for "spiraling inflation." Vetoed the President said-because it cost $130 million a year. That was on New Year's Day. One week later, the President signed and put into effect a retroactive pay increase for all military servicemen-more than three million men and women-and all white-collar civilian employees, their tenth Federal white collar pay increase in the past 8 years, averaging 6 percent, and costing $22 billion-more than 20 times the cost of the little wage board adjustment bill which he had turned down a few days before. So what have we had in the past 12 months for Federal salary improvements? The postal workers got a very deserved 14-percent wage increase. The white collar and military people received an also well-earned average of 12 percent. And the wage board employees have been "fueling the fires of inflation." So we are here to go at it again. We are here to consider the whole spectrum of wage board employment-wage rates, how they are determined, who determines them, what jobs are excluded from consideration, how the guts of the system works, and whether it does in fact establish compatability for blue collar employees. The legislation we produce in this committee this year will become the law of the land, either because the President will see the light on this issue, or because your representatives in the Senate and the House will attempt to combine partisan forces to override any veto that might be forth-coming. [Applause.] We will now hear from Senator Fong. Senator FONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was detained. The CHAIRMAN. I explained to them you were covering me also. Senator FONG. Yes, I was covering for you, and, Mr. Chairman, I am happy that you have called this hearing on the subject of Federal blue collar employee legislation. The committee last year worked very diligently, very hard, and very carefully on a bill which we approved, and which passed the Congrss. Unfortunately the President vetoed it. As one of those who worked very diligently on that bill, I was necessarily disappointed that the President did veto it. I am pleased that you have called this hearing, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to listen to the pros and cons of the bills before us. I do hope we will have an effective measure passed by this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hollings. Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to once again reiterate my support for this bill. We have done this three times, and this is a hang-up. Why can we not really succeed and have it acted upon favorably? Everybody is talking about issues. They are talking about whether the economy will be in a good state next year, or whether the war will be a big issue. Well, now, here you find in the last year increases to the military workers, to the white-collar workers, to the social security recipient, all not inflationary, but when it gets to the backbone of the economy, the blue-collar worker, all of a sudden, that is inflationary. [Applause.] I feel it is an inequity. I go home to Columbia, and I notice in Aiken, S.C., the hourly rate is $3.84, whereas in Columbia, a much more metropolitan area, a higher standard of living, a costlier level, that they only get $3.53, and I cannot explain this. I am tired of going home and not being able to explain this. The President, once more I should emphasize, not just the comparison and the parallel. It was only 10 days after finding on New Year's Day that this bill was inflationary that he allowed a depreciation allowance on machinery which readjusted to the cost of the Government of over $2 billion, and very few people know about that; $150 million on the first of January was inflationary, but only 10 days later, for industry, we found $2 billion was noninflationary, and this is what we are trying to reconcile. [Applause.] I appreciate the interest and leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma in this respect. I want to welcome him here. I have to go back to the Appropriations Committee myself, but you have a good witness, John Griner, and if you cannot understand him, Mr. Chairman, Í will be glad to interpret the testimony. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are happy to have that offer of interpretation. Senator Bellmon. Senator BELLMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy these hearings have been scheduled so early in this session. This will give us a chance to consider all of the proposals fairly and in a timely way, and, I believe the committee will be able to come up with legislation to help us end the inequities that certainly need to be ended. I feel it is high time we put an end to a double standard, because, certainly all of our Government employees work for the same Government and deserve the same treatment. This situation is not new. It is not a recent development, and it is one that certainly we ought to have taken steps to correct a long time ago. I feel very confident that again we will be able to develop legislation, and we will end this ancient situation, and hopefully have a system that will prevent it from recurring again. Mr. Chairman, I enjoy working with you on this legislative program. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moss from Utah. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. MOSS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Moss. Mr. Chairman, first, may I compliment you for calling these hearings. The bills before us should rightfully be the first order of business before this committee in this Congress. I am the sponsor of one of these bills, S. 231, and my assessment of its importance is indicated by the fact that I dropped it in the hopper on the second day on which bills could be introduced in the Senate in the 92d Congress. In my opinion, taking action on legislation to provide an equitable system for fixing and adjusting the rates for wage board and nonappropriated fund employees is one of the top priority jobs before Congress. We cannot move too decisively or too soon. The wage board and nonappropriated fund workers, who number some 800,000 and represent nearly one-fourth of the nonmilitary Federal employees, have for far too long a time been the forgotten members of our official family of workers. They were forgotten when the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 setting up a compensation system regulated by civil service law for the white collar worker. They were forgotten in 1907 when salaries of postal clerks and letter carriers were set and again, in 1924, when the Roberts Act governing the compensation of foreign service personnel was passed. And finally, they could only look on quietly when a statutory pay system for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration became law in 1946. During the past 20 years they have watched on the sidelines while these basic laws for other Government employees have been strengthened and improved and salaries periodically raised. They have had to muddle along without any statute-any Federal law-which established a systematic and fair manner in which their wages should be computed and their problems handled. They have simply been bypassed, forgotten, left out. Well, they must be left out no longer. Their patience has run out— and so has mine. They have found their voice-and so have some of the rest of us since we found out what had happened. Last session, as we all know, the Congress took heed of pleas from the "blue collar" worker for a decent system that would provide fair wages and fair chances for advancement and passed a bill which would at least begin to overhaul and modernize the prevailing rate pay system. The bill was by no means all that some of us hoped it would be, but it was a vast improvement over the present system. Let us say it was a beginning-that it moved in the right direction. I am sure every member of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee was happy when the long conference committee meetings. were over and a bill went to the White House for signature. The President's veto was frankly a bombshell. It was unjustified. It was unfair. This session we must pass the wage board bill again—a better bill, I hope-but an equitable bill. We must send it to the White House while the Congress is in session. If by any chance it is again vetoed, Congress must pass the bill over that veto. |