Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

SALARY SYSTEMS OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:15 a.m., in room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morris K. Udall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. UDALL. The Subcommittee on Compensation will come to order for the consideration of business scheduled for this morning.

I regret the late arrival of the chairman of this subcommittee. I had some urgent matters to come up and my reputation for promptness has been destroyed this morning.

The first witness is Mr. David Silvergleid, president of the National Postal Union. I again apologize for postponing your appearance, Mr. Silvergleid. This is your first appearance before us as president of your fine organization, and we are happy to have you.

STATEMENT OF DAVID SILVERGLEID, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POSTAL UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT P. KEPHART, SECRETARY-TREASURER; AND JOHN A. MORGEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Mr. SILVERGLEID. I recognize the conditions as they existed, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy we were delayed because it seems I have a remarkably fine audience this morning.

Mr. UDALL. I don't know what you did to draw a crowd. I am sure they did not come to hear me.

Mr. SILVERGLEID. They did not come to hear me, either.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is David Silvergleid, and I am privileged to serve as president of the National Postal Union, located at 425 13th Street NW., Washington, D.C. We represent approximately 70,000 postal employees throughout the United States and in the island of Puerto Rico. Incidentally, we represent also some 10,000 Federal career employees who are associate members in NPU. I have with me our secretary-treasurer, Robert P. Kephart, who originates from Philadelphia, and our executive vice president, John A. Morgen, St. Paul, Minn.

Mr. UDALL. We are happy to have Minnesota and Pennsylvania represented here.

Mr. SILVERGLEID. I don't want to overlook New York, because that is where I come from.

Mr. UDALL. I have heard of New York, too.

Mr. SILVERGLEID. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to present our views on this most important subject. We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to emphasize that for scheduling these hearings in an effort to arrive at satisfactory solutions to a situation which has proven a continuing irritant.

I recognize that at this stage of the hearing a great deal of what we may say may prove to be repetitive, but I think the subject is important enough to emphasize certain areas that I think represent the principal difficulties in trying to reach a proper solution.

Mr. UDALL. You do not need to apologize. Your views have always been very frank and I am sure your suggestions will help us make the decisions that will face us in the years ahead.

Mr. SILVERGLEID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are aware that the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has publicly criticized, on numerous occasions, the present system of pay adjustments which renders almost inevitable a long, drawn-out controversy annually. Likewise, from time to time various Members of the Congress have expressed the opinion that a system of automatic pay increases, subject to congressional veto, would be preferable to the present system.

However, before we submit any definitive recommendations in this area and others, we believe it would be apropos to review briefly the operation and implementation of the Federal Employees Pay Reform Act of 1962. The aforesaid measure was enacted during the administration of the late President John F. Kennedy as an apparent panacea and answer to the difficult legislative situation involving Federal and postal pay which had developed over many years.

On the surface, the Federal Employees Pay Reform Act of 1962 appeared to be a satisfactory approach, although not perfect. It established for the first time the principle of comparability, setting up machinery through the Bureau of Labor Statistics to ascertain the level of salaries in private industry jobs allegedly similar to those in the Federal and postal service. Upon establishing such standards, the law further provided they were to be evaluated by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, who in turn would recommend to the President that amount of pay raise considered warranted. Thereafter, the employee unions were given the opportunity to present their views for consideration before the President made his final recommendations to the Congress.

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics initiated its first investigations and ratings, the private sector area it interrogated was generally limited to substantial businesses with large numbers of employees. As a general rule, these enterprises were highly unionized and, as a result of collective bargaining, fairly satisfactory pay standards had been negotiated. However, during the past 5 years, without consultation with employee unions and without their consent or approval, the Bureau of Labor Statistics expanded the areas of its investigation to an inordinate extent. In addition to the large private enterprises, many smaller ones, as well as public employees of States, counties, and municipalities were included. A large segment of the new groups were unorganized, and consequently were compelled to work under

much poorer pay standards and working conditions. Inevitably, this new approach reduced the comparability rate to an inequitable, inadequate, and improper ratio.

This was conclusively proven during the pay raise campaigns of 1965 and 1966, when the figure recommended by the President based upon Bureau of Labor Statistics findings was ridiculously low. In both years, while inadequate pay raises of 3.6 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively, were given postal workers, pay raises achieved in private industry during the same period were substantially higher.

I might interject at this point that listening to Mr. Macy, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission on the first day of testimony, I noted particularly where he emphasized the need for considering gross compensation in arriving at proper comparability in the future. I would like to remind the chairman-I know he is familiar with itthat during the pay raise campaign of 1966 the administration insisted on a 3.2 percent gross compensation figure, a package deal, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, where the pay raise was only 2.9 percent and the balance was in fringe benefits.

I was a little surprised, I must admit, in 1967, when the administration recommended 4.5 percent without reference to gross compensation. It seems they have now gone back to the area of gross compensation, or would like to, and what is surprising is they have not in the interim come up with a comparability figure of fringe benefits. This is a surprising thing to me.

One added and most important feature of the present system of arriving at alleged comparability-and the one which has provoked the most criticism from employee unions-remains the built-in timelag of at least 1 year, and more frequently 18 to 24 months. Until 1967, the comparability findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics were as of the February-March period of the year prior to the time recommendations were made to the President. Inasmuch as implementing bills were not introduced until after the following congressional year, and public hearings before the Post Office and Civil Service Committees of both Houses took considerable time, actual pay increases did not go into effect for 18 to 24 months after the BLS findings were completed. When one added to this timelag the 6 to 12 months during which such figures were requested and compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the comparability applied was completely inadequate.

We note that earlier this month the U.S. Civil Service Commission had agreed to give employee unions greater consultation rights in comparing Federal salary rates with private enterprise salary rates. What they propose to do is merely permit the employee unions to submit views to the Budget Bureau Director and Civil Service Commission Chairman after BLS findings have been evaluated and before a report is made to the President. Outwardly it would appear the employee unions would have the opportunity to influence pay raise recommendations before they are sent to the President. Actually, the effect would be negligible, in that employee unions still have no voice in the machinery or mechanics of the BLS investigation. Besides which, while the timelag has been somewhat reduced because the BLS findings are now as of June of the prior year, we seriously doubt if this will speed up congressional action.

We come now to the main question of whether or not the present methods for adjusting Federal salaries should be changed, and in what manner. We would be strongly opposed to any proposal which would impose automatic pay increases based upon findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and recommendations of the President, even if such adjustments were subject to possible veto by either House of Congress within a specified period of time. Under the present system of investigating rates, we have learned from sad experience that comparability is a fraud and a myth. Our only means of combating the recommendations of the President is the opportunity to appear at public hearings such as this to present our side of the story to Members of Congress.

We have asserted these past years that the comparability approach as applied has not worked. Theoretically, it has considerable merit. However, to place it in its proper perspective, so that it is fair to both the public and employees, it must be brought up to date. And we propose these three approaches, Mr. Chairman:

(1) The law require the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to consult with the employee unions in promulgating the required regulations, procedures, and machinery for insuring satisfactory and equitable comparability. And may I interject here, Mr. Chairman, that I am not referring to the recently proposed change in procedures where they will consult with employee unions in the future. I am talking about the entire setup as it exists today, a complete review and a start from scratch in developing proper standards and a proper field for interrogation and investigation.

(2) The law provide that employee unions be consulted and their views considered at each and every step of the procedures relating to investigation, evaluation, and recommendation of pay proposals.

(3) That as an integral part of comparability, the law provide that pay boosts finally agreed upon be made effective as of the date of the findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To achieve true and proper comparability, it is essential there be no timelag in making pay raises effective.

I would like to remind the chairman that the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, in his statement and in his recommendation to establish administrative action similar to that provided by the Quadrennial Commission for Executive Pay, said this would make possible the further reduction of the timelag. Evidently he is not recommending anything that would eliminate the timelag as it presently exists. We feel very strongly, as is the general practice in private industry, that when a contract is negotiated any adjustment, particularly in pay, should take effect as of the date of the termination of the previous contract. While it may be stretching the point a bit, we do consider that legislation passed by Congress providing for pay adjustment for Government employees constitutes a contract between the Congress, the administration, and the employees.

We feel strongly that if the BLS comes up with a figure as of June which would indicate comparability as of that time, that any pay raise passed thereafter should be effective as of the date when they arrived at those findings.

We know from experience, Mr. Chairman, that if we do have hearings on findings we will probably arrive at a more substantial figure, because we all recognize that there is this timelag. We are referring here specifically to the amount which the BLS finds as proper comparability as of June of the previous year.

Mr. UDALL. I think most members of this committee would want not only to reduce but to eliminate this timelag entirely, but there are always problems in connection with retroactive pay raises. What do you think about eliminating the timelag not by retroactivity but by projection as to what the increases will be in the future? I used the analogy of the Internal Revenue Service, where you estimate your tax. Does this make sense to you?

Mr. SILVERGLEID. It makes considerable sense and we were thoroughly in accord with that when you suggested it a year ago, that they estimate, knowing full well what private industry increases have been. But the objection the administration raises to retroactivity was also raised by the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission when he appeared here.

I would like to say we are in accord with the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission in one area where he proposes that particular consideration might be given in the future to placing postal employees in technical and mechanical categories in the same area of consideration as wage board or blue-collar workers. We do have special employees such as mechanics and maintenance people whose pay is considerably lower because of contracts negotiated by the Teamsters, for example, and I think this could be considered as a special category. The Subcommittee on Position Classification of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee is currently making a study of all Federal position classification systems, with the objective of determining the basis for and the purpose of each of the systems, whether the systems are well managed and administered, and inequities that exist in them. We have submitted a statement dated April 25, 1968, a copy of which is attached hereto, outlining our opinions and criticisms of the present postal field service pay system, and proposing certain specific reforms.

At NPU's sixth biennial national convention held in San Juan, P.R., the week of August 19, 1968, the delegates unanimously adopted a program calling for a 15 percent across-the-board raise in pay; top salary to be reached in 3 years; an additional longevity step every 5 years after reaching top grade; credit for all past service in assigning salary steps; and a one-level upgrading for levels 1 through 7. Full justification for an immediate 15-percent increase in pay, particularly for postal workers in levels 1-7, is predicated on the fact that pay adjustments these past 15 years have invariably been too little. and too late. As a result, postal employees in the lower levels have fallen farther and farther behind on the economic treadmill. Unfortunately, pay expectations do not pay the grocer, the butcher, the milkman, or the rent. By the time pay adjustments have been enacted, many postal workers had been forced into debt in order to properly maintain themselves and their families.

Likewise, it is almost inconceivable in these times that postal employees should be required to wait 21 years before reaching top grade.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »