Annual Earnings of Engineers in Civilian Federal Government Activities by Year of Entry into the Profession (S.I.C. Code 909 TABLE XVIII 1955 7750 1947 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1935 7575 7775 7000 Lower Decile 4050 4400 4600 4600 4750 5475 7275 1945 1940 10625 12000 11625 10050 10175 10450 5775 6400 6275 6250 6575 7125 7175 7175 7000 Mr. MEBS. However, I have been informed that several Government agencies have prepared reports for the Civil Service Commission to show the need for increases in salaries of engineers, architects, and other scientific personnel in their employ. As you know, the various agencies have been raising the salaries of their employees in order to meet outside demands, and the report submitted by the National Bureau of Standards lists persons who have left their employ within recent months, giving job positions, without names, and both Government and offering salaries. The list is long, and the salary difference, with almost no exception, is large. To my own knowledge, as an example—and this is my own personal knowledge-one of my fellow employees, a metallurgical engineer, of average capabilities when compared with fellow employees holding similar Government positions, received and accepted an offer last summer from a private research institute for an annual salary of $10,300. His Government salary was $7,300. The above report also lists a large number of positions where persons have received offers from private organizations, but refused. Both Government and offering salaries are listed. These differences, also, are generally large, which leads to the conclusion that strong personal reasons have prevented these persons from separating from Government service. I have been informed that somewhat similar compilations have been made by the Naval Research Laboratory and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. I feel certain that the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service can avail itself of these reports if it does not already possess them. My organization believes that two additions should be made to the list of positions in section 401 (a) (6); namely the GS-803 series, safety engineers, and the GS-804 series, fire prevention engineers. I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to present this testimony. If it please the Chair, I have a reprint from the Chemical Engineering News, by Mr. Joseph A. Grand. ~The title is "Manpower Crisis in Federal Labs." Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you desire to add that to your statement? Mr. MEBS. I do. Senator YARBOROUGH. All right. That may be done. (The article referred to is as follows:) MANPOWER CRISIS IN FEDERAL LABS-LOW GOVERNMENT SALARIES TEMPT SCIENTISTS TO TAKE INDUSTRIAL JOBS, DISCOURAGE NEW SCIENCE GRADUATES FROM ENTERING FEDERAL SERVICE (Joseph A. Grand, chairman, professional relations and status committee, Washington section of the American Chemical Society) (Copyright 1957 by the American Chemical Society; reprinted by permission) Government laboratories are losing out in the keen competition for scarce scientific manpower. The critical situation now facing Government labs results from two things: The Federal service is not obtaining its fair share of new science graduates. It is unable to retain a considerable portion of its better scientific personnel. How serious is the problem? As one official of a prominent Government laboratory put it, "We are withering on the vine, and if we don't get help soon, we will be dead." This is an extreme view, and the seriousness of the situation varies with the character of the employment. Defense Department laboratories, employing a higher percentage of physical scientists and engineers, undoubtedly feel the pinch more severely than other departmental laboratories. Compared with industry figures, the hiring and separations statistics for Federal scientists do not indicate an alarming turnover rate. However, considerations of quality and source of employees tell a different story. Influx of new graduates into Government service, vital new blood in the lifeline of a laboratory, is a mere trickle. One recent survey shows that 75 percent of the industrial firms surveyed reported 25 percent acceptance of employment offers to scientific personnel. Another survey shows that 27 percent of the firms reported 50 percent acceptance. The Federal Government acceptance rate is only about 10 percent. MORALE PROBLEMS The prestige of many Government laboratories is built around a hard core of senior scientists hired on a highly selective basis in less inflationary years. In general, these men are devoted to their work, and salary has not been the predominant consideration. But, in recent years, with rapid inflation, their relative economic position has become painfully clear to them. Today, approximately one-third of the total separations of scientific employees from the Government are senior grade personnel. The combination of high quality employees leaving and lack of young graduates generates a lower morale and lower productivity. The prestige and sense of dedication of the Federal scientist that held him to his job possibly more than anything else can be sensibly dulled. The obvious end point of this reaction is the loss of scientific leadership and prestige of the Government laboratory and its ultimate demoralization. What has caused this aggravated condition? Fundamentally, the scientific manpower shortage is to blame. The immediate cause is the disparity of pay scales for professional employees in the Federal Government and in industry. A recent Government study compares salaries for professional employees in industry with the corresponding civil service grade designations (see table below). The grade classification GS-5 corresponds to a junior chemist or chemical engineer, or other scientific designation (a bachelor of science degree and no professional experience); GS-7 corresponds to assistant chemist (master of science degree or equivalent in experience); GS-11 corresponds to chemist (doctor of pharmacy degree or equivalent in experience). Industry pays scientists higher salaries than Government for comparable work The discrepancy in salaries between industry and Government is obvious on comparing the industry average with the Government maximum. Disregarding fringe benefits, Government salaries are approximately $700 to $3,000 per year lower. These data very closely parallel those reported by the special survey committee of the Engineers Joint Council. This report, Professional Income of Engineers 1956, issued in January 1957, shows salaries of engineers by year of entry into the profession. In this study, comparison of median pay of engineers engaged in research and development with median pay of engineers in the Federal Government shows that the Government engineer makes $575 to $3,350 less per year. FRINGE BENEFITS Some contend that the fringe benefits of Federal service-retirement, insurance, liberal vacation, and sick leave-tend to lessen this differential in pay. In addition, the prestige of Federal service, stability of employment, association with senior scientists, excellence of equipment, and nature of work may be presented as "fringe-fringe" benefits tending to lower the differential. To both the young graduate and the professional pondering separation from Government service, these benefits are not too difficult to evaluate. Many of today's industrial giants have fringe benefits similar to the Federal Government plus such extras as medical and health insurance and profit-sharing or stockpurchase plans. News of private industry's modern laboratories and equipment punctuates nearly every issue of C. & E. N. The ability of industrial scientists is well attested by their publications in scientific journals. CIVIL SERVICE VIEWS Philip Young, retiring Chairman of the Civic Service Commission, recognized Government's present lethargy with respect to fringe benefits when he said before the Engineers Joint Council: "Whereas the Government was once considered a leader in this field, private industry has been moving ahead in recent years faster than we have." In the concluding paragraph of this speech on January 17, Young said, "Now I agree heartily with the executive officer of the National Institutes of Health who recently said: 'I do not believe poverty is any more a necessary condition of dedication to science than it is of dedication to the sale of life insurance.' But the sense of dedication is a necessary condition to a fully satisfying career in the Federal service and I know that is very widely felt. There is a special appeal in the nature and importance of the pressing scientific and technical problems before the Government, and in the contributions of Federal engineers and scientists to the Nation's welfare and security that is its own reward. And this has never been as true as it is today, in this age of unprecedented scientific and technological progress." These remarks are only too true. The difficulty is that the Government does not exercise a monopoly on this sense of dedication. For the past 3 years, the Defense Department alone has passed out over $1.5 billion of research money annually to private companies. Many professional employees have left the Federal service for industrial employment in a similar capacity but with increased pay on projects financed with those funds. The growth of industrial laboratories, aided by Federal funds, and the attrition of Government laboratories is an important recruiting factor. It should seem conclusive at this point that if Government laboratories are to compete with industry in recruitment and retention of professional personnel, they must compete with comparable pay. WHAT'S BEING DONE A problem with such an obvious solution would be expected to draw considerable attention and action. Action means legislation enacted by Congress and concurred in by the administration. The problem has drawn attention, but no such action. As a result of House Post Office and Civil Service Committee hearings in the past Congress on supergrade positions Representative Charles S. Gubser, (Republican, California), and Representative John E. Moss (Democrat, California), saw the need for legislation. Bills introduced by these gentlemen in the 84th Congress (H. R. 12054 and H. R. 12055) died without hearings. In the new Congress, Representatives Gubser and Moss introduced improved versions of their previous bills. These bills (H. R. 2803 and H. R. 2804) call for increased pay, and, in addition, would set up a separate scientific and professional civil-service classification. In the Senate, Senator Olin D. Johnston (Democrat, South Carolina) has introduced a similar bill (S. 1326). All these bills have been referred to the respective Post Office and Civil Service Committees. The executive branch of the Government has also initiated action. Last year President Eisenhower, appointed the White House Committee on Engineers and Scientists for Federal Government Programs to study the recruitment, retention, and use of scientists and engineers in the Government. Committee studies were to be pointed toward immediate executive and legislative action by Congress. So far, no public announcement of findings has been made. The Defense Advisory Committee on Professional and Technical Compensation (the so-called Cordiner Committee), headed by Ralph J. Cordiner, president of General Electric, was appointed by Secretary Charles E. Wilson to study military and civilian pay problems in the Defense Department. The Washington press reports that the Cordiner Committee has recommended pay raises from $500 to $3,000 a year for all employees (not professionals alone) in civilservice grades GS-7 and up. These newspaper accounts report that the administration is cool to the proposals, and variously say that Secretary Wilson will order the report shelved or will refer the Cordiner suggestions to the Cabinet and to the President. The Civil Service Commission opposes a separate scientific and professional classification act, and also opposes a general pay raise. The Civil Service Commission desires further study of Federal pay policy that might result in a flexiblewage system that could meet rapidly changing conditions in manpower-shortage fields. This view was indicated by Commissioner Young in his speech before the Engineers Joint Council. LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK The outlook for passage of legislation is bleak at the moment, but could be changed to a rosier hue. In its efforts to fight inflation, the administration has generally opposed pay raises. Faced by a lack of administration support or strong urgings from their voting constituents, Congress appears somewhat apathetic toward the bills already introduced. Representative Tom Murray (Democrat, Tennessee), chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, has said that the appointment of two new Civil Service Commissioners will delay hearings by his group for several months. Two slight rays of hope: Senator Johnston's announcement that his committee will hold hearings in the next 4 months. President Eisenhower's statement in his budget message to Congress that pay legislation for scientific employees should await completion of the Cordiner study. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE Immediate interim legislation is needed to remove the present pay inequities. This would call for hearings in Congress now. For long-range, permanent legislation, a study group or subcommittee should be set up. This problem of the growing discrepancy between Government salaries for scientists and those paid by private industry must be solved either by the Federal administration or Congress, or both. Unless Members of Congress and top administration officials are made aware of the facts and the needs to correct a situation leading to deterioration in the quality of research in Government agencies, nothing will be done. It is becoming evident that, unless this situation is corrected, the welfare of our Nation can be jeopardized. Information on the problem has been made readily available from time to time by the various scientific societies, including the American Chemical Society. Not only is it a privilege, but it is a duty of citizens to advise their representatives regarding their views, supported by as much factual evidence as possible. One of the marks of the professional man in a serious concern with such civic responsibilities. The plight of Government scientists presents a compelling opportunity for members of the scientific professions to demonstrate their concern with professional responsibilities and the status of their professions. Rather than complain about the lack of status, each should now take some action to prove his sincerity. Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Clark, do you have any questions? Senator CLARK. No questions. Senator YARBOROUGH. Does counsel have any questions? Mr. KERLIN. No questions. Senator YARBOROUGH. Counsel for the minority? Mr. PASCHAL. Mr. Mebs, just one question. I notice you are chairman of the civil-service committee of the Council of Engineers and Architectural Society. Mr. MEBS. That is right. Mr. PASCHAL. Is that made up of architects within the civil service? Mr. MEBS. That is made up of architects in private industry and in Government service. Mr. PASCHAL. Does it have any connection with the AIA? Mr. MEBS. The AIA, the local section has. They send delegates to the District of Columbia council. |