our determination to maintain Government employee standards and pay rates equal to private industry. The latter situation is not true in my congressional district, so, as strong as I am for economy, at the same time I favor a proper adjustment in rates of pay. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the committee for this opportunity to present testimony in support of a salary increase for Federal employees. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I have been directed by the committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government, of the American Council on Education, to express the interest of the council in S. 1326 which is now under consideration by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The council, composed of 143 educational organizations and 972 institutions, among them nearly all the accredited junior colleges, colleges, and universities in the United States, has a particular concern that this legislation, designed "To establish a system of classification and compensation of scientific and professional positions in the Federal Government, and for other purposes," shall not fail in any way to recognize the essential contribution of those who serve the Government in the field of education and training. It is our conviction that the failure to give appropriate recognition in terms of status and compensation to teachers inevitably will result in deterioration in the quality of instruction in Government, and in addition will detract in some measure from current efforts to enhance the attractiveness and prestige of the teaching profession in order to meet the critical needs of this Nation. Since the urgency of this matter was brought to our attention by the Modern Language Association of America, I am attaching a letter from the association and asking that it be accepted as a part of the council's presentation for the record. Sincerely yours, RAYMOND F. HOWES, THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE FEDERAL Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: A bill (S. 1326) now pending in Congress to establish a system for the classification and compensation of scientific and professional positions in the Federal Government has come to the attention of this association. This bill in brief classifies as professional many positions but seems to exclude education in training from this classification. Members of our association who are in teaching positions in Government schools are perturbed by the omission of their categories. I understand that the purport of S. 1326 has been "misunderstood," and that it was designed to suggest "areas for discussion to determine in what categories there are shortages in Government positions due to existing pay not being competitive with that offered in business and industry." If the bill is not intended ot be exclusive of appropriate occupational groups other than those listed, it seems ambiguous in statement and capable of interpretation, should it become law, that would exclude "other appropriate occupational groups." The anticipated bulge in college enrollments will leave the country in short supply of adequate and experienced teachers. Should the Government schools, such as the Military Academies and specialized language schools wish to retain their qualified civilian teaching personnel, it would seem shortsighted not to include the teaching profession among the categories for which S. 1326 seeks reclassification and higher compensation. I know at present of two members of our association who recently left the Foreign Service Institute to accept academic positions outside of the Government (Henry Lee Smith, Jr., to the University of Buffalo; Robert Stockwell to the University of California, Los Angeles). I cannot say what their motives were for leaving or what inducements were offered with which the Govern ment erald not compete, but it would seem advisable for the authors of S. 1826 to anticipate the calls which will be made in the very near future upon all available teaching personnel to man classes in the colleges and, therefore, to so word the bill as not to excinde the teachers which the Government may need. My executive enne has authorized me to protest the ambiguity of the bill in its present state and its exclusion of the teaching profession. Sincerely yours. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, GEORGE WINCHESTER STONE. Jr.. THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I am writing to you with reference to Senate bill 1326 which I understand is under current consideration by the Subcommittee on Federal Employees Compensation of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, under the chairmanship of Senator Richard L. Neuberger. As Librarian of Congress. I should like to comment on certain provisions of this bill as they would affect the Library, since the Library is covered by the bill, and also as they would affect librarians in the Federal Government generally. As I understand this bill, it proposes to modify the Classification Act of 1949 by establishing a separate schedule of grades and pay for scientific and professional positions in the Federal Government. Although positions in the library profession appear to come within the general intent of the bill, they are not specifically included as one of the series listed. Inasmuch as the scope of the bill purports to include generally recognized professions. I should like to stress the fact that librarianship has been widely recognized as a profession both in and out of the Government. Professional library schools are well established at leading universities and the Civil Service Commission has recognized the professional status of librarians for many years in its classification and qualification standards. As with many of the other professions listed in the proposed act, there has been a serious shortage in the library profession. The professional schools have not been able to supply nearly all the demands nationwide, and the Government has suffered in competition with private industry and even with public and college libraries in attracting and holding the best qualified personnel. This problem will be intensified as a result of the recent enactment of the Library Services Act which has already increased the national demand for librarians. The difficulty of recruitment and retention has been particularly apparent in competition for librarians where other professional or scientific knowledge is required in addition to professional library training. There are many such positions in the Libarary of Congress and elsewhere in the Government that require professional training both in librarianship and in fields that are included within the purview of the bill, such as law, geography, chemistry, and physics. With the exclusion of the library series it is readily apparent that inconsistencies and inequities would accrue in salary and classification admininstration in the Library of Congress. In view of the critical shortage of librarians throughout the Nation, of the difficulties encountered by Federal agencies in recruiting and retaining librarians qualified for participation in important Government work, and of the administrative problems that the proposed new classification system would raise, I believe that the omission of the Library series from such legislation, in addition to resulting in injustices, would diminish the contributions of libraries and librarians to the Government's research and development program. It is my conviction that the objective of the bill as set forth in title I thereof would be best served by recognizing the role of librarians in the Government and by attracting to Government library service the caliber of person competent to give to the program the quality of service it demands. Sincerely yours, 92764-57-21 L. QUINCY MUMFORD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, INC., Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Employees Compensation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: I am enclosing a statement for the National As-sociation of Social Workers, dealing with S. 734 and S. 1326, which we would. like to have included in the record of the hearings you have been conducting. Generally, our association favors the objectives of these two bills which is to provide for increased compensation for Federal employees, but we specifically request that in any consideration of S. 1326 that this bill be amended to provide for two additional classifications-Social Administration Series (GS102-0) and the Social Work Series (GS–185–0). Sincerely yours, RUDOLPH T. DANSTEDT. STATEMENT OF RUDOLPH T. DANSTEDT, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BRANCH OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS I am Rudolph T. Danstedt, director of the Washington branch office of the National Association of Social Workers. I am presenting this statement in behalf of the National Association of Social Workers, which is a professional organization of 22,000 social workers employed in health and welfare agencies at the Federal, State, and local level, and in voluntary agencies. The National Association of Social Workers wishes to urge that S. 1326 be amended to provide for the inclusion of the Social Administration Series (GS102-0) and the Social Work Series (GS-185-0) in the scientific and professional classifications contained on pages 19 and 20 of S. 1326. While we understand that the particular classifications listed in S. 1326 were based upon the list of critical occupations developed by the United States Department of Labor as modified by the Office of Defense Management, we are convinced that social workers are in critical supply generally, and this fact is reflected in the extreme difficulty which the Federal Government is finding in recruiting qualified social workers. Therefore, we believe that the omission of series GS-102-0 and GS-185-0 should be corrected by amendment. Social workers hold many important consultative and administrative positions in the Federal services and are responsible for the development of the procedures and policies that guide the Government in the distribution of many billions of dollars of Federal funds, as well as in the administration of divisions and bureaus in the Government employing hundreds and in some instances thousands of individuals. The National Association of Social Workers also wishes to record its support for the schedule of pay raises proposed for Federal employees in S. 734 and S. 1326. At its annual convention in 1956 in St. Louis, Mo., the association expressed deep concern for the inadequacy of salaries for social workers in general and stated that it is essential that public agencies be adequately staffed with competent and professional social workers, and in order to attract and retain such workers, salary levels should be increased. At the present time the Federal agencies are finding it almost impossible to recruit graduate social workers into the Federal service because of the low level of salaries offered. Many States and private agencies have higher salary scales for graduate social workers than are offered by the Federal Government. Some of these scales are as much as $2,000 more than civil-service salaries for positions with comparable responsibility. This is true for positions ranging from the lowest level of appointment for new graduates of schools of social work to positions requiring great responsibility and demanding leadership qualities. The problem is exemplified by the decreasing number of applicants for civilservice examinations at a time when there is a substantial number of vacancies and by the loss of professional social workers from Federal agencies to State, local, and voluntary agencies. In past years the Federal service has been able to attract some of the best qualified persons in the profession of social work to its employ, and set standards of salaries and working conditions which were emulated by States and other employing agencies. In order to retain such personnel it is essential to raise salary levels. Since social workers constitute key personnel in providing medical, social, and public health services and coordinating Federal responsibility for the develop ment and improvement of State and local child-welfare services, public-assistance programs, vocational rehabilitation services, mental health programs, numerous services for veterans and military personnel, and related services which involve the expenditure of vast sums of money, they should be the best qualified individuals who can be recruited. In view of the acute problem of recruiting such personnel into the social work and social administration series because of the inadequacy of salaries, the National Association of Social Workers endorses S. 734 and specifically recommends favorable consideration of S. 1326 because it provides a more nearly adequate level of salaries commensurate with the responsibilities entailed in Federal, social, health, and welfare programs. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Certain that in your consideration of postal pay legislation you are endeavoring to get a clear view of all sides of the picture, I feel constrained to tell you something at least of the situation as it has developed in the heavily industrialized city of Cleveland. Particularly is this important because so many of the problems facing the Cleveland Post Office are similar to those facing the Department in most metropolitan areas. I was shocked to hear recently of the diffculty the postmaster in Cleveland, Ohio, has been having in obtaining_sufficient qualified personnel to work in the post office. At the present time, I understand that he has not been able to fill at least 500 classified vacancies as carriers and clerks. Not only has there been great difficulty in recruiting personnel for the post office, but in retaining postal employees. During the past year alone, 1,700 postal workers left their jobs, primarily to accept better paying employment in private industry. The present rate of turnover in the Cleveland Post Offive continues at approximately 145 employees per month out of a total payroll of 5,425 employees. When one considers what is required of a postal employee, it is easy to understand that an experienced worker is not easily replaced. It is my understanding that a training period of approximately 5 years is necessary in order to make a first-class post office clerk. A clerk must qualify on all primary schemes, which means in the Cleveland Post Office he is required to memorize 4,845 names of streets. In addition to this he is required to qualify on station or State schemes involving another 500 or 600 separations. And merely qualifying on schemes is still not sufficient proof that the employees can distribute mail. To become efficient in distribution of mail it requires constant practice in handling and distribution so that the mental reaction is automate. It is plain to see that a large turnover represents a terrific loss to the post office, not only in service to the people, but in efficiency and economy in the operation of the Department. Figures have been shown to me representing the actual cost to the Department in training new postal employees. I understand the cost of training a new employee is from $500 to $600 per year. For Cleveland, with a turnover of 1,700 employees last year, this amounts to almost $1 million annually. Surely this is a rather shocking extravagance. Better far to grant postal pay increases sufficient to keep the fine employees who are still in the service. As it is, the efficiency of the post office goes down hill as we lose highly trained and skilled workers. Several reliable reports have come to me that in the Cleveland Post Office many loyal employees who have years of service are contemplating resigning if some assistance in the form of increased pay is not forthcoming during the present session of the Congress. I am deeply concerned over the future operation of the postal service if the present employment trend as exemplified in Cleveland continues. It is completely understandable to learn why 82 percent of the carriers in the Cleveland Post Office either must have extra jobs or wives who work to supplement the family income when the take-home pay of a new employee with a wife and 2 children is only $114.32 every 2 weeks, and that of an employee with 5 years' service is $128.45 for a similar period. When one compares this salary level with that of private industry in our large metropolitan areas, one can realize the position in which our postal employees find themselves. In 1955 the average earnings of employees in private industry in Cleveland for a 2-week period were $185.16. The present salary level for postal employees in Cleveland is about the same as the wages paid Cleveland workers in private industry in 1950. The standard of living of our postal employees has certainly not kept pace with that of our factory workers. May I urge that your committee give favorable consideration to postal pay legislation that will compare more favorably with wages received by our employees in private industry. Sincerely yours, FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr. JOHN G. JONES, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS, Administrative Assistant to Senator Richard L. Neuberger, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JONES: Confirming our telephone conversation this morning, may we ask that you include in the record of the hearings on S. 1326, by Senator Olin Johnston, a provision for including professional, registered pharmacists in the act, for the purpose of establishing a system for the classification and compensation of scientific and professional positions in the Federal Government. Perhaps this might be accomplished by inserting, on page 18, line 1, after "registered nurses": “*** and registered pharmacists"; and after the word "surgery" insert "* * * and pharmacy." We are inclined to believe that the nonclassification of professional pharmacists in S. 1326 was inadvertently overlooked. As you no doubt know, pharmacists are employed in many of the Government agencies-among them the Veterans' Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Public Health Service. Cordially, GEORGE H. FRATES, Washington Representative. STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. BAKER, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND POSTMASTER, ON S. 27 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward L. Baker. I am postmaster at Detroit, Mich., and a vice president and the legislative chairman of the National Association of Postmasters. As an officer of this association, having a membership of 34,000 postmasters, and as the head of a large post office employing 6,648 of my fellow Detroiters, I believe I am qualified to express an opinion on the postal field service salary increase problem now before your committee. At the outset I would like to commend the 84th Congress for the sensible postal field service salary schedule embodied in Public Law 68, and approved by that body some 2 years ago. In keeping with the sound principles of Public Law 68, Mr. Chairman, I urge you and your committee to recommend to the 85th Congress that postal field service employees be given an immediate salary increase on a percentage basis, equivalent to the increased cost of living. It is realized, Mr. Chairman, that based on the Post Office Department's operating budget, present postal revenues, and the general desire to control inflation, such action may be discouraged in certain quarters. However, the Congress has before it at this time legislation providing for nominal increases in postage rates which will bring the revenue and budget into closer balance. Further, in my opinion, postal field service employees should not be penalized because a salary increase for them may, in a minor way, have a tendency to affect the ever-increasing inflationary spiral. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our postal service is manned by a work force of capable and dedicated career employees. In recent years, because of our salary scales, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit, for replacement and expansion, a work force of equally capable and dedicated employees. |