into the Government. It ought to be high enough so they can live decently.

There are other reasons, without going into them now, why I do not think a general wage increase at this time would be wise for the sake of everybody, but I do believe these particular people are not receiving the minimum they should receive.

I thank you for this opportunity. I ask to be excused because I have to go to the Judiciary Committee.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Senator.

Any questions, Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. None.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Kerlin?

Mr. KERLIN. None.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I thank Senator Watkins for taking the time to come and give us the benefit of the survey he has made personally. I know it will be valuable to the committee.

Senator WATKINS. I will leave this chart with you and these names and addresses and the evidence of the figures I have just given.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that counsel for the committee study them but they need not be printed with the record due to the volume.

Senator WATKINS. They should not be printed as there are too many.

Senator YARBOROUGH, Counsel can study them for the benefit of the committee.

(The documents referred to above are on file with the committee for reference purposes.)

Senator NEUBERGER. I think that is advisable use to make of them. I want to ask you one question, Senator Watkins. You said that you favored an increase in the postal pay to insure a living wage for these people but that you felt at this time, it was not advisable to have a general overall governmental salary increase. Do you think it is possible that in other departments as well as the Postal Department, there are situations which require upward adjustments?

Senator WATKINS. There may be. I have not seen the study of anything of the nature that I have just presented here for the postal clerks and letter carriers. When that study is made, it might appear others are in the same position. If that should be the case, I certainly would favor a minimum wage there.

Senator NEUBERGER. That is what I wanted to ask you."

Senator WATKINS. A living wage.

Senator NEUBERGER. That is what I wanted your opinion on. Thank you for coming.

Senator WATKINS. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Before we have our next witness, I want to put in the record a number of things I think are pertinent to some of the evidence which has been brought out during the course of these hearings.

Reference has been made on several occasions to the position of the administration that increases in pay should be related to increased productivity. As I stated in the beginning of these hearings, a Government which is either unable or unwilling to arrest the ever-incresing cost of living has a solemn obligation to its employees to see that

92764-57——16

their wages are adjusted upward as need be. However, if increased productivity is to be the sole yardstick, an instance has been called to my attention which supports the statements made by many witnesses who have appeared before this subcommittee to the effect that the efficiency and productivity of Federal employees is constantly improving.

The Honorable M. B. Folsom, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in an official report relating to S. 1683 stated:

I share with you and your committee the objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government. We are making progress in this direction. In this Department the largest bureau-the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance increased its productivity per employee between 1950 and 1956 by 35 percent. The productivity of other units in the Department is not so readily measured. I believe that if we continue to emphasize good management methods, good personnel methods, with adequate salaries and other appropriate incentives toward efficiency, we can move in a much more assured manner toward the objective of improved management than by placing an arbitrary ceiling on the total number of Government employees.

I feel that in this instance, the pay of these employees has not kept pace with their increased productivity and I think the statement of the Secretary should appear in the record.

I am also going to ask there appear in the record an article from the Washington Post and Times Herald, dated May 25, 1957, which is headlined "Consumer Price Rise Continues 14th Month," and I believe that, inasmuch as this indicates that the cost of living is continuing to accelerate, it is pertinent to appear in the record. (The article mentioned above is as follows:)

CONSUMER PRICE RISE CONTINUES 14TH MONTH-APRIL CLIMB 0.3 PERCENT; BLS PRICE INDEX SETS RECORD FOR 8TH TIME IN Row

Consumer prices continued their 14-month upward climb in April with a jump of 0.3 percent. The price index, compiled by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, registered 119.3 last month, as compared with 100 for average prices in 1947-49.

The latest reading marks the eighth straight month in which the index has set a record. It now stands 3.8 percent above a year ago and 4.1 percent over February, 1956, when consumer costs began drifting higher.

FOOD COSTS SET PACE

Seasonally higher prices for meat, fruits and vegetables sparked a 0.5 percent food-price gain. This accounted for most of the April advance, BLS said, although the price of nearly everything else also increased.

In the Washington metropolitan area, April food prices averaged 0.3 percent above March and 4.7 percent over a year ago. Higher prices for beef, veal, chuck roast, pork, and leg of lamb made up the bulk of the local rises.

The new national index will bring pay boosts of 2 cents an hour to 1.4 million workers in autos, farm equipment and electrical machinery under escalating contracts, the BLS estimated. These increases will show up in the first June paychecks. Moreover, some 350,000 workers at General Motors Corp. will pick up an additional 6 cents an hour or 2.5 percent pay rise-whichever is greater. The corporation's contract with the United Auto Workers provides these yearly "improvement" stepups.

BLS Commissioner Ewan Clague predicted the so-called living-cost index for May would also be higher. "Most of the factors are pointed seasonally upward," he said.

Senator NEUBERGER. Our next witness today will be Mr. Tom Walters, operations director, Government Employees Council, AFL-CIO. We are glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF TOM WALTERS, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to join with you and others in welcoming back to his usual position, our good friend, Bill Brawley. We are all delighted that he is now recouperated enough to assume part of his responsibilities at least.

Mr. BRAWLEY. This is all very embarrassing but very much appreciated. I am glad to be back in the thick of the fight.

Mr. WALTERS. First of all, we would like to express our thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senators Johnston and Langer for introduction of these bills and for you and the members of the committee taking time out to hold these hearings in order that the Federal and postal employee legislation can be considered by this Congress.

By way of introduction, my name is Thomas G. Walters, operations director of the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO, 100 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.

The Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO, is made up of 23 national and international unions whose membership, in whole or in part, are civil-service employees. The total Federal and postal employee membership of the Government Employees' Council is more than 600,000.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, at the outset I would like to state that it is the unanimous opinion of the officers and delegates of the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO: “One pay increase for Federal and postal employees in 6 years ain't' enough."

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO, I express the thanks and appreciation of our group to Senator Johnston and Senator Langer for the introduction of these bills effecting the financial welfare of postal and Federal workers. We likewise express our thanks and appreciation to Senator Johnston for naming this subcommittee, and we greatly appreciate the members of this subcommittee holding these hearings and giving our people the opportunity to appear and testify in support of this type of legislation.

In the Cordiner report, that we have heard referred to several times during these hearings, we find the following definition of a fair and decent salary:

Employees must receive sufficient compensation to enable them to establish and maintain a standard of living which will allow them to discharge their responsibilities to their families and to their employers.

I would like to add, "and to the society of which the employees are a part." In our considered opinion the vast majority of all Federal and postal employees do not receive a sufficient compensation to do these things ae referred to by the Cordiner report and the addition that I suggested. With the enactment into law of the provisions that are provided for in S. 27, S. 1326, S. 910 the Federal and postal employees affected would be in a reasonable position to establish and maintain a standard of living along with their neighbors and friends. During the past several months I have talked with thousands of Federal and postal employees and the vast majority of those that

I have talked with are forced to supplement their salaries from the Government by additional work on the outside, and a good percentage of their wives are forced to take employment in order to keep their grocery bills and other necessary expenses paid.

We hear a great deal about juvenile delinquency, and I am oldfashioned enough to believe that with mothers being compelled to work may contribute a great deal to child delinquency in this country.

To give you a concrete example of outside work, I recently drove into a service station on Wisconsin Avenue NW., and the man servicing my car recognized me and introduced himself as a postal clerk. Since then we have become acquainted and it develops that he has three boys and a girl. The oldest is 11 years of age. This post-office clerk is working 20 hours a week at the service station plus every other Sunday, plus his 40 hours per week in the post office, plus travel time to and from work, and you can readily understand that this father is almost a stranger to his wife and children. I am sure that we all agree that this man along with all other fathers should be spending some time with his children and especially his boys. I am confident that more than 50 percent of all Federal and postal employees are in one way or another being forced to supplement their salaries from the Government. I am confident that 30 to 35 percent of the wives are working outside the home.

I was interested to note, in answer to a question propounded by Senator Neuberger, Mr. Merriam, Assistant Director to the Bureau of the Budget, stated that the Bureau had not made a study of whether or not post-office and Federal employees were receiving a living wage, even though Mr. Merriam on behalf of the Budget Bureau opposed salary increases for Federal and postal employees. In my honest opinion if employees receive good wages and working conditions their morale is bolstered, their productivity improved, and will likewise over the long haul improve their health and thereby reduce sick leave. In all Federal agencies and the field service Post Office Department, a contented and satisfied group of employees will give better, quicker, and surer service. If people are worried they not only become ill but their productivity can be expected to decline. Over the years it would be economy for the Federal and postal service to pay adequate wages and to have good working conditions for this would not only lessen the cost of sick leave to a great degree but it would lessen the turnover that is now increasing day by day.

The very fact that examinations are announced and are continued indefinitely proves without a shadow of a doubt the difficulty the Federal Government is experiencing in finding new recruits and holding those that are now in the service. This question of turnover in the Federal and postal service is costly and also slows down the service and tends to keep unrest throughout the agencies and departments. With the small number standing the examinations it is reasonable to assume that Uncle Sam is not getting the cream of the crop of employees, and a poor employee entering the service today means a poor employee for the next 20, 30, or 40 years and an additional liability on the Federal Government.

The bills before this committee today and the ones that we are specifically endorsing, in my opinion, are not wholeheartedly classed as pay increases but simply as pay adjustments. Not since the early thirties has the Federal and postal employees' salaries kept pace with

the salaries of other employees. In March of this year the 1939 dollar had been reduced to 49.6 cents. This does not take into account the method of American standard of living. Many items that are now considered as necessary were not so considered and in many instances had not been produced in 1939.

As stated previously the Government Employees' Council, AFLCIO, has unanimously endorsed S. 27, to provide salary increases for field service postal employees, S. 1326, to increase the compensation of scientific and professional positions and S. 734 to incerase the basic compensation of Classification Act employees.

With 42 percent of the overall number of employees covered by the Classification Act and 19 percent field service postal employees and 34 percent are wage board or blue collar employees not affected by this or any pending legislation before this committee at this time. It seems to me and to the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO, that the 61 percent Classification Act and field service postal employees should not be denied a wage adjustment awaiting the proposed study that has been presented to this committee by the Civil Service Commission and other administrative witnesses. This is simply postponing the operation and I agree wholeheartedly with some comments that were made the first day of this hearing by Mr. Don Kerlin, a member of this staff, when he asked the question, addressing it to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission: "What about several transfusions to the employees while we await the operation?"

Much has also been said by certain administration witnesses about the fringe benefits for Federal and postal employees. These we all appreciate but, my friends, fringe benefits do not feed or clothe people. In other words these fringe benefits can never take the place of adequate salaries.

During the past several months many official and unofficial committees and commissions have made studies and recommendations on the salary question of Federal and postal employees, and all of those that I have read or seen quoted strongly favor and recommend salary increases for Federal and postal employees, and if other studies are made on a fair and equitable basis they too will make similar recommendations. All charts, graphs, and other information that I have seen or read list Federal and postal employees and the retired employees at the bottom of the "totem pole" in reference to purchasing power from their salaries. This is true if 10 groups are listed or if 30 or 40 groups of employees are listed.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, this condition should not exist in America.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, along with the council's general legislative agenda we have three legislative items that we refer to as major items and ones that we believe this Congress should enact into law

1. A substantial salary increase for all employees under the Classification Act and the field service of the Post Office Department.

2. A fair and equitable labor-management law in the Federal service.

3. Increases for all annuitants that were on the rolls prior to October 1, 1956.