« 이전계속 »
drew that premium and the top salary of post-office clerks, post-office letter carriers, and postal transportation clerks assigned to stationary installations were the same.
Senator NEUBERGER. In other words—I want Mr. Kerlin or anybody else to tell me if this is wrong, because these figures are so profound in their impact that I find them difficult to believe is it true that, in the period from 1932 to 1957, the general wage level in the United States has risen over four times that of people in the postal service?
Mr. NAGLE. Mr. Chairman, I accept the authenticity of the Post Office Department's schedule in that regard. I have not checked into it, but I accept it.
Senator NEUBERGER. Is that possible, Mr. Kerlin? Not that I am doubting Mr. Nagle; it just seems almost incredible to believe. You see what I mean? If these figures are correct, there has been= Senator Yarborough undoubtedly knows, that is
Senator YARBOROUGH. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman; don't the figures reflect this; that there had been a 450-percent increase in weekly wages over the former prevailing weekly wage in industry generally, and a 92- to 105-percent increase in the salary accorded to postal transportation clerks. Those increases refer only to an increase over the former prevailing weekly wages in that particular segment of industry, rather than meaning that wages in private industry had increased that much over the postal employee's wages, because in 1932, I think, the postal transportation clerks were better off, relatively, than the average weekly wage earner in the United States.
Senator NEUBERGER. Undoubtedly, there must be something like that in it, because the difference is so great.
Senator YARBOROUGH. It would not mean that industrial wages went up four times as much as the post-office employees, but merely increased that much over the wages they formerly drew in their particular industries.
Mr. NAGLE. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry; had you finished? Senator YARBOROUGH. I had finished. Mr. NAGLE. According to the chart submitted by the Post Office Department, in 1932 the weekly wage was $17 in industry, and I recall the first salary check I received in the Post Office Department when I came in to sub in 1936, which was $35 for 1 week. So that, approximately, at that time, it is my own experience as a valid criterion, we were receiving double the amount of the prevailing wage. That $17 has now risen to $80 and, certainly, we have nothing resembling that percentage increase, and I feel that the figures shown here do, indeed, reflect the change in weekly wages from 1932 to 1957. They do, indeed, and they are intended to indicate that there was a 450-percent increase in weekly wages industrially in that time and, in our own weekly or annual salary, we have had 92 to 105 percent. .
Senator NEUBERGER. In other words, when you went to work for the postal service you were substantially ahead of the weekly average?
Mr. NagLE. Double. .
Senator NEUBERGER. I think that is very important to bring out for the record and that is why I emphasized that and I am glad Senator Yarborough pinpointed it so well.
Are there any other questions?
Senator YARBOROUGH. I have another question, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nagle, you state that there was testimony by the General Counsel for the Post Office Department that the separation rate in post office employment was 1.1 percent. Do you mean that was the separation rate per year, because I have seen statistics that said there was a turnover in postal employment and postal service of 3313 percent per annum?
Mr. NAGLE. As I recall—I am as deeply puzzled as you, Senator Yarborough, with the significance of those figures—the oral testimony which was submitted by the General Counsel of the Post Office Department a week ago today, advanced testimony based on figures which had been submitted to the Labor Department by the Post Office Department, to show that these are the figures. These are the actual figures in effect to challenge, as I interpreted the testimony of the Counsel of the Post Office Department, the authenticity of the 331/2 figure which I certainly concur is closer to being accurate.
Mr. BRAWLEY. This is a monthly rate, I think the 1.1.
Senator YARBOROUGH. The 1.1 was a monthly rate. Now, assuming that is a monthly rate, do you have any information as to whether that indicates the entire postal service or whether that is in conflict with the statements I have seen printed in a number of different publications that the turnover rate among the postal employees and the letter carriers, the clerks, the postal transport workers and all those categories out over the Nation, that the annual turnover rate was 3313 percent or one-fourth of all the employees in the postal service over the Nation ?
Mr. NAGLE. Senator Yarborough, I am unable to say with precision that 3312 percent is a true figure. I believe that certainly, 1.1 percent is not an accurate one in the context in which we are speaking.
Senator YARBOROUGH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KERLIN. I think I might clear that point a little bit. In all of Government except the Post Office Department, it is usual that when a person no longer wishes to work for the Government to separate himself completely from the rolls. It then shows up as a separation from the Government.
In the Post Office Department, many of the employees are in a status where they are available if called upon. They no longer are available because they have accepted other employment but they do not separate themselves from the rolls but insofar as the postal service is concerned; they are unavailable. They are separated, but their name is not taken off. Thus, the separation rate does not reflect the true picture and, hence, you get 1.1.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Per month.
Senator NEUBERGER. In other words, it does not reflect those that actually leave active employment ?
Mr. KERLIN. That is right.
Senator NEUBERGER. I am interested in obtaining that, because those figures were rather startling.
Senator YARBOROUGH. So, Mr. Counsel, this 1.1 percent per annum, shown as being a repetition of what had been stated by the General Counsel for the Post Office Department, is not necessarily in conflict with the 3312 percent figure?
Mr. KERLIN. Not at all. That is merely a reflection of those that have retired or have walked up and have said, “Remove my name from the roll,” but does not indicate the totals who have become unavailable.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Or lost from that service. Thanks for that clarification.
Senator NEUBERGER. I am glad you raised that point...:
I would like to say we are very pleased that Mr. Brawley, who has been confined to the hospital for a period of time, is back with us, and we are very pleased to see his recovery and good health. [Applause.]
Mr. BRAWLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. NAGLE. I am interested in your statement in which you quote former Postmaster Robert H. Schaffer, of New York. When he resigned, he said:
What kind of career service is this, where a postal worker has to work 12 to 14 hours daily—8 in the post office and 4 to 6 hours on a part-time job-in order to make a decent living.
To clarify the situation there just a little bit, how long did Mr. Schaffer serve as postmaster at New York City ?
Mr. NAGLE. My recollection is that he was there about 2 years. "
Mr. BRAWLEY. In other words, he was appointed by President Eisenhower as postmaster at New York City ?
Mr. NAGLE. Yes, indeed.
Mr. BRAWLEY. Do you know anything about his resignation ? Are these some of the reasons why he resigned his job there, because of the bad situation existing in our largest post office in the Nation?
Mr. NAGLE. That is my understanding. Postmaster Schaffer had an excellent reputation among the post office employees in New York, and I know that if the comments reaching me are at all indicative, that there is a general feeling of regret that the postmaster has felt forced by these circumstances to leave his post.
Senator NEUBERGER. Could we put in the record definitely, inasmuch as this point has been raised, I think, Mr. Brawley or Mr. Kerlin, exactly what period of time, from what date to what succeeding date, Mr. Schaffer actually served in the postal service, because the point has been raised, and I think it is well to have accurate information.
(The following information was subsequently submitted :) Mr. Schaffer was appointed acting postmaster of New York on August 16, 1954. He was appointed postmaster on August 31, 1955, and he resigned effective May 31, 1957.
Mr. KERLIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman; and, in addition, I think at this point it might be worth while to insert in the record the statement by Postmaster Schaffer as reported in three New York newspapers.
Senator NEUBERGER. Without objection, it will be included.
(The articles referred to are as follows:)
[Reprint from New York Mirror]
POSTMASTER CANCELS "EXPERTS" All those "experts” sounding off on inadequate mail service ought to have the postmaster's job for about a week and learn what life looks like from there, New York Postmaster Robert H. Schaffer suggested yesterday.
He put in a plea for higher salaries for postal workers, speaking at the 36th annual corporate communion breakfast sponsored by the New York Post Office Holy Name Society, at the Hotel Sheraton-Astor.
"The truth is," Schaffer declared, "that even as the Nation's economy began to expand in the late 1930's and through the 1950's, the salaries of postal workers went down and down. Until the time that the economic squeeze is lifted off the postal workers, no one will be able to say that morale is away up there."
He said he wished "some of those who sit in the seats of the mighty in all branches of Government could be made aware of the plight of the postal worker, who has to augment his Government pay by income from outside employment in order to meet his family needs."
And he added, "A lot of experts outside of the Department have been trying to demonstrate that we have adequate salaries. Just let them sit in the postmaster's chair for 6 days and they will learn differently."
A municipal lottery, controlled and operated by the city government to ease city financial difficulties was recommended by Representative Paul A. Fino, Bronx Republican.
He said it would provide the added funds to repair all of our torn and broken streets; give the people safer, more adequate, and comfortable transit facilities; supply sufficient police protection; give better pay to our civil-service workers ; build more schools and playgrounds and provide many other important and needed services.”
Former Postmaster General James A. Farley also spoke. Before the breakfast, the postal workers attended 8 a. m. mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, celebrated by Cardinal Spellman.
[Reprint from New York Times]
COMMUNION FETE Robert H. Schaffer, New York postmaster, deplored yesterday the "inadequate” salaries of postal workers.
He expressed the wish that "some of those who sit in the seats of the mighty in all branches of Government could be made aware of the plight of the postal worker who has to augment his Government pay by income from outside 'employment in order to meet his family needs."
Mr. Schaffer spoke at the annual communion breakfast of the New York Post Office Holy Name Society, attended by 1,700 at the Sheraton-Astor Hotel. The breakfast followed mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Former Postmaster General James A. Farley told the gathering he had always been an advocate of higher postage rates. Representative Paul A. Fino, Bronx Republican, called for a lottery to ease the city's financial difficulties.
[Reprint from New York Daily News)
SCHAFFER Hits Low Post OFFICE PAY The "inadequate" pay scale for postal employees was deplored yesterday by New York Postmaster Robert H. Schaffer.
Addressing 1,700 members of the department at the 36th annual corporate communion breakfast of the New York Post Office Holy Name Society in the Sheraton-Astor, Schaffer said that from the late thirties through the fifties the salaries of postal workers went "down and down" in comparison with wages of others. Said Schaffer :
"What kind of a career service is it that the postal worker has, to work 12 or 14 hours a day-5 or 6 days a week-8 hours in the post office and 4 to 6 hours on an outside job?”
Representative Paul A. Fino (Republican, New York,) called for a municipal lottery, controlled and operated by the city, to ease the city's financial difficulties.
Senator NEUBERGER. Are there any other questions for Mr. Nagle? Mr. NAGLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank you again very much and I would like especially to echo the gratification you expressed at the return of Mr. Brawley to the work of the committee.
Thank you very much.
Senator NEUBERGER. We are all very gratified to have Mr. Brawley back with us.
I see that Senator Watkins has arrived and I would just like to say, Senator, that you were not here when I made this earlier statement that whatever presentation you have to make will be included in full in the record and if you care to just paraphrase it, it will be fine with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator WATKINS. My statement is not very long and I would like with your permission to read what there is of it.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify now because I am due right now at a Judiciary Committee executive meeting. We have some difficulty in getting a quorum in that committee and since we cannot operate without one I do appreciate this opportunity.
Senator NEUBERGER. Go right ahead, sir.
Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, some time back I was in Salt Lake City and I met with a delegation of postal workers and representatives and they had advised me of the large number of people who had to have two jobs in order to live. Either they had to have two jobs for the head of the family or else the wife had to take a job as well, so I asked them to get me some concrete evidence of that.
I had heard that general statement made time and time again but I had never seen the evidence of it, so they went to work and had a survey made and I have the returns from the postal workers here with me [indicating]. They brought them to me not long ago and my statement covers this field.
I appear before your committee this morning to advise you of the results of an employment survey conducted this month among the postal workers of Salt Lake City. The results of this survey, I am sure, will be helpful to you in your consideration of the proposals to increase postal pay.
The survey covered 375 postal workers. Of this total, 6 were temporary substitute letter carriers and 63 were regular substitute carriers, working on an hourly wage. Thirty other workers were on vacation or sick leave at the time of the survey, and 32 were older carriers whose families are raised and homes paid for or who have been able to establish business interests which can help sustain them economically.
Of the remaining 244 employees covered by this survey, only 24 were found who did not have to obtain extra employment or whose wives were not working to supplement the family income. The num