concerned. Complete justification of not only the need for this legislation but the specific salary rates may be taken from the reports of the Defense Advisory Committee on Professional and Technical Compensation, better known as the Cordiner Committee, the White House Committee on Engineers and Scientists for the Federal Programs, the Young Committee; and the National Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers, the Bevis Committee. I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that the reports of the above committees be made a part of the records of these hearings. While I have no direct knowledge, statements have been circulated in the press that the report of the Young Committee may not be made public. I am certain that if that is true that this committee has ways and means of bringing to light that valuable study. And from the standpoint of solving a critical recruitment problem facing the Federal Government as an employer, disclosure of the report would be a public service. Mr. Chairman, the Federal local unions of our federation have made a diligent study of S. 1326 since its introduction. It is our earnest belief that for ultimate success all segments of the engineering team should be considered as a team in the initial enactment of this bill. Therefore, in order to complete the team, I earnestly suggest and recommend that the following classifications of positions be incorporated in the list appearing in title IV, section 401 (a) (6): GS-1020-0-Illustrator (technical equipment). GS-1102-0-Contracts specialist. GS-1150-0-Industrial specialist. GS-1152-0-Production specialist. And there are an additional two classifications which I recommend be added to the list, those being: GS-1946-0-Ship surveyor and inspector; and The reason that they were omitted from my original recommendations was because of a misunderstanding of their duties caused by a misnomer of their title. The word "inspector" added to their title is very misleading; these are not material inspectors, there are the folks who write specifications for shipbuilding and repair. They are responsible for providing private shipbuilding and repair contractors the specific aspects of the work on which they are bidding and they are people who maintain liaison with the contractor for design and technical information during the period of their contract. I wish, also, Mr. Chairman, to confirm the recommendation of Mr. George Riley, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO who testified yesterday in favor of adding the GS-803 series, safety engineering to the list of classifications. Now I would like to make a few observations as a result of previous testimony. I would first like to clear up what I believe to be an inadvertent defect in the earlier record. During interrogation, the Honorable Albert Pratt, after he had presented his most excellent statement the other day, was asked at what levels of compensation the Cordiner Committee addressed its studies. Mr. Pratt's reply was that the studies and recommendations included those grades of GS-7 and above. As the starting level for the engineering and scientific employee, and I believe all professional employees, is at the GS-5 level, I believe that the record should be corrected to indicate that the report covers employees at, and above, the GS-5 level. The honest error in Mr. Pratt's testimony, I believe, can be attributed to the Cordiner Committee's recommendation that the starting salary for professional, technical and managerial grade levels be changed from GS-5, as at present, to GS-7. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further observation. The salary schedule as recommended by the Cordiner report was based upon a survey of private industrial wages paid in 1956. Earlier in these hearings there was introduced into the record an article taken from the latest edition of U. S. News & World Report, which stated that the 1957 starting salaries for engineers in private industry were up from $500 to $700 per annum above those of 1956. White Collar Report for May 20, 1957, published by the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., reports that one of the Nation's largest employers of engineers is offering a percentage across the board increase to all of its present engineering employees, based on the difference between its offers to new engineers this year and its offers in 1956. This offer on the part of that company is bound to set a criteria for all private employers who are so desperately bidding for the services of engineering personnel. Now, Mr. Chairman, when you take into account the Cordiner recommendation of a starting salary at the GS-7 level, which would, of course, raise grades all up and down the line in order to keep the compensation for the graduated levels of duties and responsibilities in alinement and add to the salary scales recommended by the Cordiner report base on a 1956 survey, the percentage differential of the new 1957 entrance rates worked out to 128/10 percent, you will find, as I have, by simple mathematical computation, that the compensation schedule included as title III of S. 1326 is tailored to the 1957 market prices of the types of personnel that I am discussing. Again, Mr. Chairman, I fully endorse and urge your favorable reports on S. 910 and S. 1326, with the amendments that I have recommended. I thank you for this opportunity and for your courtesy and interest in this most important legislation. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your clear statement, Mr. Stephens. I have one question about the latter part of your statement. You state that you endorse and urge favorable reports on S. 910 and S. 1326 with the amendments that you have recommended. Now, I take it you mean the amendment by adding those five different classifications? Mr. STEPHENS. The five classifications that are in my originally Senator YARBOROUGH. Does counsel have any questions? You have recommended the addition of 5, plus 2, I think, categories. The committee has requests from some 16 or 18 groups who maintain that they, too, are professional people. What criteria can you suggest that could be used in establishing a benchmark to determine who is professional, who ought to be included, and who is not professional? Mr. STEPHENS. That is something that would be very difficult to determine. I think the thing that we are really trying to do is to put the Federal Government in a competitive position for the highly critical skills that it is unable to obtain at this time. And as a benchmark procedure I would first attempt to include all those positions which the Government finds that it is impossible to recruit, and that is a matter of record with the agencies. It is a mattter of record with the Civil Service Commission. My knowledge is only in the field of the engineering, scientific, and technical groups. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the other professional groups. I know nothing of whether there is a shortage of accountants or lawyers; I cannot speak for those groups. I Mr. KERLIN. It seems to me that is one of the very real problems. A pharmacist has always been considered a professional man. know, because I happen to be one. But whether a pharmacist from the interest of national security ought to be included in the schedule is debatable. It is a real problem trying to determine which groups should be in and which ones should not. Are you suggesting from your comment there that perhaps the criteria should be not just that he be a professional man but that there be a shortage in that category? Mr. STEPHENS. That is right. Mr. KERLIN. That is all. Thank you. Senator YARBOROUGH. Counsel for the minority have any questions? Mr. PASCHAL. No questions. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for your state ment. Is Mr. Russell Mebs present? Mr. Mebs, will you come around, please? I am sure that all of the prospective witnesses will bear in mind Chairman Neuberger's request of yesterday, repeated today, that insofar as possible that you attempt to condense your statement. Your full statement will be filed with counsel here and will appear in the record for use by this subcommittee, the full comittee and on the floor of the Senate, but it would greatly facilitate the work of the committee if you could condense your written statement into an oral statement here. Proceed, Mr. Mebs. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL W. MEBS, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTURAL SOCIETY Mr. MEBS. My name is Russell Mebs. I am representative of the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architectural Societies and I wish to record that my organization favors passage of S. 1326, the Scientific and Professional Classification Act. My organization is the coordinating agency for 29 local engineering and architectural societies, or local sections of national engineering and architectural societies. The total membership of these groups numbers about 8,000, the majority of which are in the Government classified service. We believe this to be one of the largest single groups affected by this proposed act. By that I mean local groups in the community. We favor the adoption of a separate schedule for scientific and professional employees for the reasons stated in section 101 of this bill. The drain by industry, universities, and other private organizations of engineers and architects from Government service has been particularly severe. The effective maintenance of our defense program, as well as other vital Government services, is greatly dependent upon possessing engineers, architects, and scientists of the highest quality, and also in securing capable replacements for those lost by retirement, death, and other causes. Therefore, the adoption of the increased salary scale listed in section 301 (a) of this bill is also very necessary. We are aware that this committee has, or will receive various reliable compilations of comparative salary scales for engineers and architects in Government service with those obtained elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard the testimony on Monday or Tuesday, and there is one other compilation which I do not know if it has been referred to in this discussion which I would like to refer to at this time. Senator YARBOROUGH. Continue. Mr. MEBS. This is the special survey committee of the Engineers Joint Council, Report No. 102, 1956, which was published January 1957, the title of which is "Professional Income of Engineers in 1956," and this report lists a comparison of salaries of engineers in industry and in the Government, respectively. They are classified by year of entry into the profession; the annual salary for the upper decile and quartile, median, lower quartile, and decile, respectively. Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you have the table there? Mr. MEBS. I do not have a copy and if the Chair desires I will be able to get a copy. Senator YARBOROUGH. Will you supply the charts which give the comparison to counsel for inclusion in the record as part of your statement? Mr. MEBS. Yes; I will. Senator YARBOROUGH. That may be included. (The charts indicated follow :) |