•

Y ,

, 841/0 t*I"; 61f4 A d C, 1114:79

94 FORMULA FOR GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM '-

INCREASE WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS PROMOTED

GOVERNMEN 

Storage

rg

r-R

=0

0

r-1

r-q

.\OE Uto,

HEARING c--, 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON : 7

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

_ c',1c-

"SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1010 and H.R. 2015

BILLS TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, AS

AMENDED, TO PROVIDE A FORMULA FOR GUARANTEEING

A MINIMUM INCREASE WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS PROMOTED

FROM ONE GRADE TO ANOTHER

AUGUST 2, 1961

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

73409 WASHINGTON: 1901
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY,

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

JAMES C. DAVIS, Georgia

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN,- Pennsylvania

TETADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. IIENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

CATHERINE D. NORRELL, Arkansas

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

Tennessee, Chairman

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York

KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 1010 AND H.R. 2015

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

CATHERINE D. NORRELL, Arkansas

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

II

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

•
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Langan, James K., operations director, Government Employes' Coun- rage

cil, AFL—C10_ 19

Lesinski, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Michigan 2

McCart, John, director of legislation, American Federation of Government Employee& 11

Messer, Ross, legislative representative, National Association of

Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees 14

Owen, Vaux, president, National Federation of Federal Employees 13

Stahl, 0. Glenn, Director, Bureau of Programs and Standards, Civil

Service Commission 6

FORMULA FOR GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS PROMOTED

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in room 215, House

Office Building, Hon. Thaddeus J. Dulski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. DuLem. The committee will come to order.

Today we are holding hearings on H.R. 1010 and H.R. 2015.

(The bills follow:)

[H.R. 1010, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, to provide a formula for guaranteeing a

minimum increase when an employee is promoted from one grade to another

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 802(b) of the Classification Act of

1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1132(b)), is amended to read as follows:

"(b) Any officer or employee who is promoted or transferred to a position in a

higher grade shall receive basic compensation at the lowest scheduled or longevity

rate of such higher grade which exceeds his rate of basic compensation in effect

immediately prior to such promotion or transfer by not less than two step-increases

of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred. If, in the case of any

officer or employee so promoted or transferred who is receiving basic compensation

at a rate in excess of the maximum longevity rate for his grade, or in excess of the

maximum scheduled rate of his grade if there is no longevity rate for his grade,

under section 604, section 1105(b), or any other provision of law, there is no

scheduled or longevity rate in such higher grade which is at least two step-increases

above his rate of basic compensation in effect immediately prior to such promotion

or transfer, he shall receive (1) the maximum longevity rate of such higher grade

or the maximum scheduled rate of such higher grade if there is no longevity rate

for such grade, or (2) his rate of basic compensation in effect immediately prior to

such promotion or transfer, if such rate is higher."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period following the date of enactment of this

Act.

[H.R. 2015, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, to provide a formula for guaranteeing a

minimum increase when an employee is promoted from one grade to another

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the tinited States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 802(b) of the Classification Act of

1949, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"(b) Any officer or employee who is promoted or transferred to a position in a

higher grade shall receive basic compensation at the lowest rate of such higher

grade which exceeds his existing rate by not less than the amount of difference

between the minimum rate of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred

and the minimum rate of the grade to which he is promoted or transferred. If

1
2 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

there is no rate in such higher grade which exceeds his existing rate of basic

compensation by the amount of such differences, such employee shall receive

(A) the maximum scheduled rate of the grade to which he is promoted or transferred, or (B) his existing rate of basic compensation, whichever is higher."

SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect as of the first day of the first pay period following enactment.

Mr. DULSKI. This subcommittee was appointed to consider H.R.

1010, sponsored by M-r. Lesinski, and H.R. 2015; sponsored by Mr.

Green of Pennsylvania. These bills would provide a formula for

guaranteeing employees under the Classification Act a minimum salary

increase when promoted from one grade to another.

The purpose of this legislation is to require that, when a classified

employee is promoted, he will receive an increase in compensation that

is more realistic and more commensurate with the increased responsibilities he must assume in the higher grade.

Section 802(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, now provides that

an employee upon promotion will receive a rate of compensation in the

higher grade which exceeds his existing rate of basic compensation by

not less than one step-increase of the grade from which he is promoted.

A one-step increase amounts to $105 for grades GS-1 through GS-4;

$165 for grades GS-5 through GS-10; and $260 for grades GS-11 and

above, with the exception of grade GS-15.

However, the present formula applies only to the scheduled rates of a

grade and does not permit use of the longevity rates. Thus, an

employee in the top longevity step of any of the grades GS-1 through

GS-9 would receive at most only a token increase upon promotion

to the next grade.

H.R. 1010 would change the present formula so as to permit the use

of longevity grades and to require a minimum of a two-step increase.

This bill is identical to the bill H.R. 543 which was considered

favorably by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee in

the 86th Congress and which was the result of an amendment suggested by the Civil Service Commission.

The formula suggested by H.R. 2015 does not permit the use of the

longevity grades but is much more liberal in the amount of increase

guaranteed to employees upon promotion. This bill was objected to

by the Civil Service Commission last year and has received an

unfavorable report again.

I am pleased to note that the Civil Service Commission still favors

a more liberal formula, such as proposed by H.R. 1010, to assure an

employee some recognition compensationwise upon being promoted

from one grade to another.

We are pleased to have with us today as our first witness, Congressman Lesinski, who sponsored H.R. 1010. Mr. Lesinski, I think you

are to be congratulated on your persistence in sponsoring this legislation again. I am convinced that it is beneficial legislation and will

be a logical advancement in beneficial legislation for classified

employees.

Mr. Lesinski.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LESINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. LESINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to express my deep appreciation to our committee

chairman, Tom Murray, for assigning this subcommittee to consider
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 3

my bill, H.R. 1010. Also, I am grateful for the prompt action you

have taken in scheduling this hearing and for affording me the opportunity of testifying.

I shall make my statement as brief as possbile since I am as anxious

as I am sure you are that all the witnesses here this morning be given

ample time to testify and that the subscommittee can take action on

this most worthwhile legislation.

H.R. 1010 is identical to my bill of the last Congress, H.R. 543, as it

was amended and reported favorably from the House Post Office

and Civil Service Committee. This action came late in the session,

hence the House had no time to act on the measure. I might point out

that the amendment adopted last year was the result of a Civil Service

Commission recommendation. While it changed the salary increase

formula from my original proposal, I considered it a good step in the

right direction and I supported the amendment. This present measure

has the full support of the Commission and the Bureau of the Budget,

as you will learn from the Commission's representatives later this

morning.

Under present law, a classified employee who is promoted or transferred to a higher grade, in most cases, receives a pay increase equal

to at least a one-step increase in the grade from which promoted.

In a great many instances this can mean a rather small increase, or

actually no increase at all, for so important an action as a promotion

in grade.

H.R. 1010 would provide for a minimum guaranteed promotion

pay increase equal to a two-step increase. In addition, it uses both

the scheduled and longevity rates. This means that employees who

are being paid at the longevity rate of the grade from which promoted

would be assured of a salary increase upon promotion to a higher grade.

The simple objective of H.R. 1010 is to make more realistic and

more meaningful promotions from one grade to a higher grade for

employees under the Classification Act. Since promotions give practical recognition to qualified and competent employees and place

such employees in positions of increasing responsibility, it would

appear reasonable that an adequate salary increase accompany the

promotions. An appropriate monetary reward on promotion would

also offer a materially greater incentive for promotion than now

exists under present law.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great need for this legislation, both from

the standpoint of the employee and in the interest of efficient functioning of our Government. I sincerely urge favorable action on H.R.

1010.

In a democracy people strive to enhance their income by working

harder to achieve a higher salary and by taking on higher responsibilities and burdens, so as to more gainfully give their families an

income commensurate with today's living.

When a person takes on additional responsibility with no increase

in pay he is prone to shy away from attempting to improve himself.

This is a natural thing any person does and the exceptions are few.

People who are overzealous about becoming better qualified in the

job they are doing at the present time would come under this.

In order to be able to have the most qualified people promoted and

to provide for a reasonable increase in their salaries commensurate

with the additional responsibilities assumed upon promotion, I

earnestly recommend enactment of this legislation.
4 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

I would like to insert in the record a few examples of what we are

talking about.

(The examples referred to follow:)

EXAMPLES OF PROMOTION SALARY INCREASES FOR CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES UNDER

PRESENT LAW AND UNDER H.R. 1010

1. Present law

Employee in third step of salary level 3 is promoted to grade 4. Present salary

is $3,970. Step increase is $105. Employee would go to second step of grade 4

with salary of $4,145 or an increase in salary of $175.

H.R. 1010

Employee would go into step 3 of grade 4 with a salary of $4,250 and an in--

crease of $280.

2. Present law

Employee in second longevity rate of grade 3 is promoted to grade 4. Present

salary is $4,600 and step increase is $105. Top scheduled rate of grade 4 is $4,670.

Employee would go to top scheduled rate of grade 4 with a salary increase of

only $70.

H.R. 1010

Employee would go into the second longevity step of grade 4, paying $4,880,

with a salary increase of $280.

8. Present law

Employee in top longevity rate of grade 5 is promoted to grade 6. Present

salary is $5,830. He would go to top scheduled rate in grade 6 which pays $5,820.

Since this is less than he now makes, he would retain his present salary and

receive no increase whatsoever.

H.R. 1010

Employee would be placed in the third longevity rate of grade 6 which pays

$6,315, giving him . a salary increase of $485.

4. Present law

Employee in top longevity rate of grade 12, paying $11,035, is promoted to

grade 13. Employee would go into fourth step of grade 13, paying $11,415,

with a salary increase of $380.

H.R. 1010

Employee would go into fifth step of grade 13 with a salary of $11,675 and an

increase of $640.

Mr. DuLsKi. I assume you are in favor of the bill?

Mr. LESINSKI. I certainly am. I have been in favor of this type

of legislation for many years.

As we all know, the mills of legislation grind slowly and this has

been one of my original proposals from away back.

Mr. Du',sm. Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I have no questions to ask of our distinguished

colleague.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to testify before you.

Mr. Du',mu. Thank you for taking time out from your busy

schedule to testify.

We will next hear from Mr. 0. Glenn Stahl, Director, Bureau of

Programs and Standards, Civil Service Commission.

(Reports from the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 1010 and

H.R. 2015 follow:)
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 5

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., May 10, 1961.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MURRAY: This is in further reply to your letter of January 12, 1961,

requesting the Commission's views on H.R. 1010, a bill to amend the Classification

Act of 1949, as amended, to provide a formula for guaranteeing a minimum

increase when an employee is promoted from one grade to another.

The Commission favors enactment of this amendment.

Section 802(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, which would be amended by

the proposed legislation, now provides that when an employee is promoted or

transferred to a higher grade he shall received basic compensation at the lowest

rate of such higher grade which exceeds his existing rate of basic compensation by

"not less than one step increase of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred." If there is no scheduled rate in the higher grade which meets

this minimum increase requirement, the employee receives the maximum scheduled

rate of the higher grade or his existing rate of basic compensation, whichever is higher. Since this authority does not permit the use of longevity rates for this

purpose, employees at the top longevity rate for some grades receive little or no increase when they are promoted to the next higher grade.

H.R. 1010 would amend section 802(b) to provide more meaningful pay increases

for employees who are promoted or transferred to a higher grade. Under this

amendment an employee would receive "the lowest scheduled or longevity rate

of such higher grade which exceeds his rate of basic compensation in effect immediately prior to such promotion or transfer by not less than two step increases of

the grade from which he is promoted or transferred." If there is no scheduled or

longevity rate in the higher grade which meets this requirement, the employee

would receive (1) the maximum longevity rate of such higher grade or the maximum scheduled rate of such higher grade if there is no longevity rate for that grade

(as in GS-16 and GS-17), or (2) his existing rate of basic compensation, whichever

is higher.

We believe the proposed two-step increase would provide an appropriate

monetary reward on promotion and would offer a materially greater incentive

for promotion than now exists under section 802(b) of the Classification Act.

Furthermore, through utilization of both scheduled and longevity rates, all

employees paid at the longevity rates of the grades from which promoted would be

assured of a salary increase when they are promoted to a higher grade.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., May 10, 1961.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MURRAY: This is in further reply to your request of January 12, 1961,

for our views on H.R. 2015, a bill to amend the Classification Act of 1949, as

amended, to provide a formula for guaranteeing a minimum increase when an

employee is promoted from one grade to another.

The Commission agrees with the general objective of this bill but, for the

reasons outlined below, does not favor its specific provisions.

Section 802(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, which would be amended by

the proposed legislation, now provides that when an employee is promoted or

transferred to a higher grade he shall receive basic compensation at the lowest

rate of such higher grade which exceeds his existing rate of basic compensation

by "not less than one step increase of the grade from which he is promoted or

transferred." If there is no scheduled rate in the higher grade which meets this

minimum increase requirement, the employee receives the maximum scheduled

rate of the higher grade or his existing rate of basic compensation, whichever is

higher.

78409--61----2
6 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

H.R. 2015 would amend section 802(b) to provide more meaningful pay increases

for employees who are promoted or transferred to a higher grade. Under this

amendment an employee would receive "the lowest rate of such higher grade

which exceeds his existing rate by not less than the amount of difference between

the minimum rate of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred and the

minimum rate of the grade to which he is promoted or transferred."

While the amended section 802(b) would generally result in a more substantial

increase in salary upon promotion, it would have the disadvantage in many instances of placing the employee so near the top of the salary range for the new

grade that little within-grade advancement incentive would remain. In some

cases it would have the additional disadvantage of placing the employee in the

new grade at a rate higher than the rates being paid to other employees who have

already been in that grade for some time. Furthermore, since neither existing

law nor the proposed amendment permit utilization of longevity rates for the

purposes of section 802(b), employees at the top longevity rate for some grades

would continue to receive little or no increase when promoted to the next higher

grade.

During the last Congress, we reported to your committee on four bills (H.R.

543, H.R. 1957, H.R. 3081, and H.R. 4067) which proposed an amendment

identical to the one now under consideration in H.R. 2015. At that time we

agreed with the general objective of the bills but did not favor the specific provisions of the amendment as drafted. As a substitute, we recommended an amendment to provide that when an employee is promoted or transferred to a position

in a higher grade he would receive the lowest scheduled or longevity salary rate

of the higher grade which exceeds his existing rate by not less than two step

increases of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred.

Legislation which would carry, out our suggestion has been introduced in this

Congress as H.R. 1010, now pending before your committee. Its provisions,

while providing a greater immediate reward for a promotion than the existing

law, would not involve to the same degree, the disadvantages which would result

from the amendment proposed by H.R. 2015. Furthermore, through the utilization of both scheduled and longevity rates, all employees paid at the longevity

rates of the grades from which promoted would be assured a salary increase on

promotion to a higher grade.

The Commission recommends against enactment of H.R. 2015 as now drafted

and suggests that favorable consideration be given to an amendment like the one

proposed in H.R. 1010.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

STATEMENT OF 0. GLENN STAHL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PROGRAMS AND STANDARDS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. STAHL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

Glenn Stahl, Director, Bureau of Programs and Standards, Civil

Service Commission.

I appreciate this opportunity to come and help to explain the provisions of the bills that are before you on this particular subject. The

principle is not very complicated although the execution does get a

little complicated at times.

What is involved here is simply an effort to make promotions from

one grade to another, when an employee is moved from one position to

a position of a higher grade, a little more meaningful. We are speaking

now only of employees whose positions are subject to the ClassificaAct.

Under the Classification Act of 1949, which is the act as it now

stands it had been provided that when an employee was at any

particular rate, within a range of rates, for his grade and was then

promoted to the next grade, he was entitled, upon being promoted,
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 7

to go to a rate in the next grade that was at least as high as the amount

of a step increase within his old grade. This was necessary because

the rate ranges in the grades overlapped.

Of necessity, you cannot have a broad rate range for a grade--so

that people can progress within their grade in salary—without its

overlapping the next rate range or the next grade a little bit at least.

Otherwise, you would have to have very wide differentials between

grades. That provision was in there to make the promotion somewhat meaningful.

In our experience, and I think in the experience of others who have

been interested in this matter, this is still inadequate to recognize a

promotion. Under the present situation, an employee can get a

promotion from one grade to another that is no more significant to

him, dollarwise, than one of his step increases which he becomes eligible

for after either a year or a year and a half of service. Consequently,

it has been the conclusion of a number of people that this ought to be

liberalized.

The bill which was recommended by your committee last year but

which did not get acted on by the House was H.R. 543. H.R. 1010

in this Congress is identical to that one and is fully supported by the

Civil Service Commission.

What that bill essentially provides is that when an employee is

promoted from one grade to the next grade where the rate ranges

overlap, and he is already at the third or fourth rate within the previous

grade, he would get, upon promotion, the equivalent of at least two

step increases.

Let us assume, for example, that the step increase in the first grade

is $105. In some of the grades, it is $165, and it increases as you go

up the scale. Where, under the present situation, an employee is

guaranteed a minimum increase upon promotion of $105 a year, which

does not amount to very much in a significant action such as a movement to a higher level of responsibility, he would, under the proposal,

be guaranteed an equivalent of $210 a year as a minimum. It does not

always come out to that amount because the provision of the bill,

H.R. 1010—which is identical, as I say, to the one reported out last

year—provides that this would be the minimum. If it does not come

out even, if the pay steps in the next rate range do not hit it on the

nose, then he would simply go to the next higher rate, provided

it was as high as two pay steps in the old rate range from which he was

promoted. This is the bill upon which we urge your favorable action.

As I say, it was reported favorably by your committee last year

and we continue to think that it would be a desirable piece of

legislation.

As to the other bill, H.R. 2015, we feel it is a little overliberal, and

I will be glad to go into that in more detail if you would like. We

think it causes more problems than it solves.

Since the committee had already taken favorable action on the

bill that is the equivalent of your present H.R. 1010, I was addressing

myself primarily to that.

Mr. DuLsxr. Let me interrupt.

What is the estimated cost of this legislation?

Mr. STAHL. I will try to answer that, but let me preface my answer

with this observation: We cannot give you an accurate estimate.

This is one of the things I had in mind when I said the principle here
8 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

is fairly simple but the execution is complicated. The reason we

cannot give you an accurate estimate is this: We do not have any statistics on the distribution of promotion of employees by the various

rates within their ranges. We know how many employees and what occupations there are—at least once a year we have data on how

many employees are in each grade by various occupations—but we do not know how many are promoted from each rate within grade. Consequently, we do not have a statistical basis that is very accurate in making any kind of an estimate, because this is all contingent upon the rate within a grade at which an employee happens to be serving, and the rate to which he would be entitled under the proposal in the next grade to which he is being promoted.

However, last year your committee staff, with the cooperation of

our staff, tried to work out a formula for making an estimate. We simply took the estimated number of promotions, which was based

on some fairly scattered data which appeared to be reasonable

We took this estimated number of promotions and distributed those

over all of the grades and then multiplied that out by one pay step.

In effect, this bill was proposing an increase in the amount of money that would be gained upon promotion by the equivalent of one pay

step. Last year this computation came to $22.5 million, and this

year, because of the pay increase last summer, and because of the size of the increase in the within-grade steps, it would amount probably

to about $25 million. Even that is not an accurate estimate because, obviously, all promotions are not made at the beginning of a year, either a calendar or fiscal year. Certainly during the first year,not all of the costs of these promotions would be felt. It would not actually be $25 million in the very first year. It would depend upon the time of the year in which an individual promotion was made.

It would probably be the second full year in which we would realize the total impact of the cost, because it would have the effect of accelerating the movement of employees slightly within the rate

ranges of whatever grade they have been promoted to.

On the average, salary increases would be one step higher than they would be under the present system and the whole object of this, I

repeat, is to try to make a promotion to a new level of responsibility fairly meaningful.

Mr. DULSKI. Would you submit a table later on that?

Mr. STAHL. Yes, we would be very glad to supply a table. We

were unable to put it into final form rapidly enough to have this morning. We will supply that for the record.

(The table referred to follows:)
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COST OF PROMOTIONS UNDER H.R. 1010

Full-time positions, Classification Act, all areas, June 30, 1960, Federal and District of Columbia governments

Grade Total employees

Pay steps Longevity steps

Pay step

increase

maEstited

nufmber

o promotions

to higher

step

Estimated

cost

A

B

c

D

E F G

x

Y z

GS-1 2,471 932 179 121 120 91 74 449 163 97 245 $105 

36 36 28 22 135 257 $26, 981 GS-2 _ 40, 103 18,872 3,040 2,073 2,202 1,548 1,295 7, 152 1,370 1,515 1,036 105 

912 622 661 464 388 2, 146 5, 193 545, 261

GS-3 _ 162, 686 42,303 16, 794 13, 933 12, 205 9, 904 9, 826 43, 348 5, 689 5, 646 3,048 105 

5,038 4, 177 3,662 2,971 2,948 13,004 31,800 3,339, 000

GS-4 164,741 27,051 15, 518 13,328 11,714 9,446 15, 647 60, 185 4,398 4,546 2,908 105 

4,655 3, 998 3, 514 2, 834 4, 694 18,056 37, 751 3, 963, 851.

135-5 115, 551 19,406 10,686 10,463 17, 427 14, 165 10,048 27, 641 2,359 2,232 1, 124 165 

3,206 3, 139 5,228 4,250 3,014 8,292 27, 129 4,476, 281

GS-6 49, 735 8,283 5,684 4, 806 4,680 6, 878 5, 161 12,371 736 793 343 165 

1,442 1,404 2,064 1, 548 3,711 10, 169 1, 677, 885 GS-7 87, 162 18,034 11,729 8,752 7,623 7,977 6,771 21,930 1,753 1,750 843 165 

2,626 2,287 2,393 2,031 6, 579 15, 916 2,626, 140

26,189 5,499 3,230 2,971 2,312 2,518 2,506 5,712 1,037 292 112 165 

891 694 755 752 1,714 4,806 792,990

13S-9 100,948 16,979 16,227 16,554 12,538 8,410 6,113 19,751 2,007 1,810 559 165 

4,966 3, 762 2, 523 1, 834 5, 925 19,010 3, 136, 650

13S-10_ 14,488 3,084 2,227 1,689 1,251 1,688 1,358 2,893 158 112 28 165 

507 375 507 407 868 2,664 439,560 3S-11 86, 147 21,684 18,546 17,311 7,446 3,492 15, 173 1,525 970 260 

1,048 4, 552 5,600 1,456, 000 13S-12 63, 049 15,592 11, 004 12,984 5, 079 1,991 14, 109 1,290 1, 000 260 

4, 233 4,233 1, 100, 580 13s-13 40, 775 8,647 10,249 5, 744 2,261 1,667 10, 665 1, 003 539 260 

3,200 3,200 832,000 135-14 18, 114 3,687 5, 032 2,521 1, 149 664 4, 540 280 241 260 

199 1,362 1, 561 405, 860 135-15 8,189 1,553 1,995 1,232 618 2,460 120 211 325 

185 738 923 299,975 05-16 .. 1, 103 329 310 181 104 179 260 

31 54 85 22,100 135-17 466 180 117 80 31 58 260 

GS-18 

_ 184 184 

Total 982, 101 212, 299 132, 567 114, 733 88, 760 73, 136 103, 286 201,432 23, 888 21, 754 10, 246 Total 13,811 22,404 21,839 20,828 30, 985 60,430 170, 297 25, 141, 130

NorE.-The method used in developing this estimate is the same as that used by the committee staff, working with Civil Service Commission representatives, to estimate the

cost of H.R. 543, 86th Cong. This estimate represents the maximum cost of the bill which could be realized only after the 1st full year following enactment. It is assumed that 30 percent of the employees in steps A through G are promoted annually. Figures in italics represent employees in pay steps not affected by the bill. (Employees promoted

from these steps would be paid at the minimum rate of the higher grade under existing

law or under H.R. 1010.) The 2d line figures for each grade represent the 30 percent

who may be promoted from steps affected by the bill. Further, it is recognized that 30

percent of the employees in step G may not be promoted; however, the excessive CO

amount here will offset failure to include those in longevity steps.
10 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

Mr. Duism. Are there any questions?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What is the history of last year's legislation,

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Du',sic'. Last year's bill, H.R. 543, was reported by our

committee late in the session and the House did not have an opportunity to consider it.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Our committee reported it favorably?

Mr. Du'ism. That is right.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What happened to it?

Mr. MARTINY. It was reported to the floor of the House on June

24, and there was no action taken by the House. The cost of the bill

prevented it from going on the consent calendar.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. We would have to go for a rule?

Mr. MARTINY. Either a rule or suspension of the rules on an item

such as this of approximately $25 million.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Has any study been made as to which grades

receives the greatest number of promotions?

Mr. STAHL. Well, I cannot say that a study has been made, but

I think I would be fairly safe in saying that there is a considerably

higher rate of promotions in the lower grades than there would be in

the higher grades, simply because there are far more promotions

there and more turnover there.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Those who receive less salary presently would

benefit, in your judgment, most by this legislation?

Mr. STAHL. Yes, I think so, simply because there is more turnover

and more opportunity for employee movement and more promotions.

There is one other thing I would like to point out in connection

with the cost estimate. If anything, that is on the high side. We

leaned over backward not to underestimate and if I have any doubts

about it, my doubts are that it is too high. There are so many

permutations and combinations of circumstances that it is pretty

difficult to add these together and make it come out in any statistically

supportable form.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What is the proposed effective date of the

legislation?

Mr. STAHL. I think it is the first pay period after enactment.

That is what I recall.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Has the Budget Director approved, or has he

taken into account, the increased costs?

Mr. STAHL. I must presume he took into account the increased

costs, because the Budget Bureau cleared the Commission's favorable

report on this legislation.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. So the amount would probably be in addition

to the present amount and could be absorbed?

Mr. STAHL. Yes, I would think that that would be the intent,

because it would be so widely spread throughout the service that it

would not hit any part of the service any more than any other except,

of course, those limited to the Classification Act. It has no applicability to jobs not under the Classification Act.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I presume the Departments with the most

emp!3yees naturally would 

Mr. STAHL. The most employees under the Classification Act are

in the Department of Defense.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 11

Mr. DuLsKi. I have no other questions.

-Thank you very much.

Mr. STAHL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DULSK1. Our next witness is Mr. John McCart, director of

legislation, American Federation of Government Employees.

STATEMENT OF JOHN McCART, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, we have presented to the subcommittee a prepared statement on the bills under consideration and with

your permission I would like to have that statement appear in the

record.

Then I would like to proceed with some extemporaneous comments.

Mr. DuLsKi. Without objection, the statement will be inserted in

the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Two bills under consideration today would provide an important improvement

to the classification system. The principle embodied in both bills has the hearty

endorsement of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Before clarifying our position on these bills, we wish to express appreciation to

both sponsors: Representative Lesinski for introducing H.R. 1010, and to Representative Green for sponsoring H.R. 2015.

The bill H.R. 2015 is identical with that introduced by Representative Green

last year. It represented our position then, and it is still the objective desired by

many of our members. We feel certain that no less than the change proposed in

H.R. 1010 is needed if promotion from one grade to another is to offer sufficient

incentive.

The purpose of these bills is to make a promotion something to be sought after

and to reward it to an extent commensurate with the added difficulty or the responsibility assumed. Both bills would amend section 802(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. This section presently provides that the rate of

pay an employee shall receive upon promotion to the next higher grade is that

which "exceeds his existing rate of basic compensation by not less than one

step-increase of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred."

Thus an employee whose position is raised from GS-3 to GS-4 would under

H.R. 1010 be required to receive an increase of not less than $210. H.R. 2015

would require the employee to be placed in the step in the higher grade which

would assure him of an increase amounting to not less than the difference between

the minimum rates of the two grades involved, or $315. If he was at step 4 in

GS-3, the bill would require him to be placed at step 4 in GS-4.

The fact is that there is no difference in effect of either H.R. 1010 or H.R. 2015

when they are applied to promotions to the next higher grade from grades 2, 3,

and 5. To receive an increase of not less than $210 (two step increases in grades

2 and 3) or $330 (two step increases in grade 5), it would be necessary to place the

position at the same step in the next higher grade. The difference in the number

of step increases gained by the application of H.R. 2015 as compared with H.R.

1010, in the remaining grades varies until it reaches a maximum of four step

increases for promotions to the next higher grade from grades 12, 13, and 14.

Considerable progress has been achieved since the classification system was

established in 1923. The original law did not require that promotions had to

result in a salary increase. Nor did the first two important amendments—the

Welch Act of 1928 and the Brookhart Act of 1930. Furthermore, while there

were as many pay steps within the first 15 grades as there are today, there was no

provision for movement within a grade.

The Classification Act of 1923 provided that advancement to the next higher

rate within a grade shall be allowed upon the attainment and maintenance of the

appropriate efficiency ratings. In actuality an employee could be advanced to

the next higher rate only if he maintained a satisfactory efficiency rating, if funds

were available, and if the change complied with the so-called average clause.
12 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

This provision was written into every appropriation law beginning with the fiscal year 1926, and it was the greatest obstacle to salary increases for classified employees. Some employees received no change in basic rate of salary for as long as 10 years. The average clause permitted compensation increases only if they did not raise the average of the salaries for all positions within the same grade. It is a source of real satisfaction that the AFGE was instrumental in obtaining the elimination of the average clause.

The first substantial progress came with the introduction of the within-grade salary increase plan into the classification system in 1941. It then became pos- sible for employees to advance with regularity through the range of pay rates within a grade. Even then a promotion from one grade to another did not necessarily result in a salary increase, and when there was a raise, it was as small as $25 a year. The revision of the classification law in 1949 required that a

grade promotion must result in an increase in compensation equal to not less than the amount of the step increase of the grade from which the employee was pro- moted. The bills under consideration today would make the advancement more nearly in proportion to the assumption of great responsibility.

We have briefly reviewed the significant Classification Act provisions relating to advancement from grade to grade for the purpose of indicating the manner in which improvement in this respect has been accomplished. It has come about gradually and the recital of this phase of classification history seems to indicate that it is logical now to carry this progress another step forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to comment on these bills.

Mr. McCART. First, Mr. Chairman, we want to express our appre- ciation to you and to your colleagues for scheduling these hearings and we want to thank the authors of H.R. 1010 and H.R. 2015. As you know, the Classification Act is constructed on a series of grades and within those grades there is a series of steps through which

an employee advances upon completion of a satisfactory term of service.

There is also a provision for longevity increases after 10, 13, and 16 years of service in a grade.

The employee can be promoted from one grade to another either through a competitive promotion process, or through having his job reclassified on the basis of duties and responsibilities. Upon his promotion from one grade to another, he is entitled to a one-step increase. In the case of employees in the lower grades, that increase amounts to $105 a year and in the case of employees in the middle grades, it amounts to $165 a year.

When you reduce that to a weekly basis the employee is receiving

a gross increase of about $2 in one case, and about $3.25 in the other. As you can see, this is a very small amount.

The history of the Classification Act indicates that progress in the step increase system has been rather slow and the last action on this

score occurred in the 1949 Classification Act when employees were guaranteed the one-step increase.

We feel that the time has come now to improve that so as to provide

an additional incentive for employees to accept promotions. There

are cases where employees are not willing to accept promotions because the amount of the increase is so small and they could obtain the increase simply by staying in their own grade for a specific amount of time.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we recommend the committee's approval of H.R. 1010. It will not only provide an incentive for the employees, particularly in the lower grades, but it will also improve the administration of the Classification Act in our opinion.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 13

Mr. Duisicr. Are there any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. McCart.

Mr. MCCART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DuLsici. Our next witness is Mr. Vaux Owen, president,

National Federation of Federal Employees.

STATEMENT OF VAUX OWEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement I would

like to read, if I may.

My name is Vaux Owen and I am president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Our headquarters office is located at

1729 G Street, Washington, D.C.

First, I want to express the appreciation of our organization for

being allowed to appear before your subcommittee and for the attention being given this bill, H.R. 1010.

We appreciate also the fact that it has the support of the administration and we were glad to hear the testimony of the representative

of the Civil Service Commission in favor of it.

The National Federation of Federal Employees strongly supports

H.R. 1010 and urges a favorable report by this subcommittee.

The purpose of H.R. 1010 is to make promotions from one grade to

another more meaningful in terms of increased pay. Such a purpose

is in harmony with the basic principles underlying the Classification

Act which called for pay in keeping with the level of the duties and

responsibilities of the employee. In other words, the higher the level

of the responsibilities and the greater the difficulty of the duties the

higher the pay should be.

To expect an employee to take on heavier responsibilities and more

difficult duties without a reasonably comparable increase in pay lessens

the incentive of employees and is not conducive to an efficient Federal

service.

The present law provides that when an employee is promoted from

one grade to another he will receive not less than a one-step increase

in his pay in the grade from which he is promoted. The step increases

in grades 1 to 4, inclusive, are $105 per annum. Step increases for

grades 5 to 10, inclusive, are $165 and for all other grades except

GS-15, $260. A one-step increase where an employee is promoted

from one grade to another provides very little increase in remuneration

for the assumption of a higher level of responsibility and more difficult

duties.

Furthermore one who is promoted to a higher grade is often promoted to a position in which he has supervision over employees in the

grade from which he was promoted. Since pay rates for the grades

overlap, some employees in a lower grade receive a higher rate of pay

than the employee who is promoted will receive after a one-step

increase in his pay. There will be cases where this will be true even if

this bill which provides for two step increases should pass. However,

this proposed legislation would reduce the number of such cases and

for that reason would have a salutary effect on the service. Also, it

would be more equitable for the employee who assumes a higher

level of duties and responsibility when he is promoted.
14 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

It is firmly believed that the passage of H.R. 1010, which will provide

a more meaningful increase in pay for employees who are promoted,

would be for the best interest of the Federal service as well as the

employees.

I thank the chairman and members of this subcommittee for the

opportunity to present the views of the National Federation of Federal

Employees and strongly urge a favorable report on H.R. 1010.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

Mr. DuLsKi. Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Are there any questions?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. This bill would apply to all grades, would it not?

That is, right through the supergrades?

Mr. OWEN. All grades under the Classification Act.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Including the supergrades?

Mr. OWEN. I assume it would apply to the supergrades; no distinction there.

Mr. DuLsKr. Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

Mr. OWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DuLsKi. Our next witness is Mr. Ross Messer, legislative

representative, National Association of Post Office and General

Services Maintenance Employees.

STATEMENT OF ROSS MESSER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL

SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I am

Ross Messer, legislative representative, National Association of Post

Office and General Services Maintenance Employees. We would like

to endorse the proposal before the committee this morning providing

a greater increase for Classification Act employees upon promotion.

The increases they receive at the present time, particularly in the

lower grades, are very small, $105. We think that the two-step

increase, or $210, would be much more appropriate.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DuLsKi. In other words, H.R. 1010 does not go far enough;

is that what you mean?

Mr. MESSER. We would like to see a greater increase, if possible,

in the postal service where the majority of our members, upon being

promoted to a higher level, receive an increase equal to the difference

between step 1 of the level he is leaving and step 1 of the next level.

That is considerably more than a step increase. We believe that

H.R. 2015 would come nearer answering the situation as most of

your promotions are one-grade promotions.

Mr. DuLsicr. Mr. Messer, according to the schedule we have here,

I note that the largest amount of increase would be in the third,

fourth, and fifth class where the estimated cost involves mostly employees within the $5,800 category. Would that cover your employees?

Mr. MESSER. Yes, it would.

Mr. DuLsKi. As I understand it, when a man reaches grade 5,

that would amount to $165?

Mr. MESSER. That is right, grade 5 and above. The majority of

our employees are clerical and they are also telephone operators and

guards. Your clerks and telephone operators range from grades 3,
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 15

4, and 5 and about the highest we have is GS-5. That would catch

one group at $165 under the present law and the remainder would

be at $105 under the present law.

Mr. DULSKI. We are considering both, but you would not object

to H.R. 1010?

Mr. MESSER. No, sir.

Mr. DuLsKi. You would not be opposed?

Mr. MESSER. We favor H.R. 2015 but we would not object to

H.R. 1010.

Mr. DULSKI. Thank you, Mr. Messer.

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Stahl.

one more question.

Mr. DuIsla. Proceed.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Has any estimate been made as to the percentage

of salary increase this will be?

Mr. STAHL. Percentage?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Yes, in the overall governmental salary range.

Mr. STAHL. You mean whether it would affect the average salary

in the Government by making it a little higher?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Yes.

Mr. STAHL. I would doubt it, but let me check with one of my

experts here.

Mr. Hare, do you think it would affect that? I do not see that it

would. A constant turnover keeps people fairly equally distributed

on the rates within any given grade. Mr. Hare reminds me that the

total payroll for employees under the Classification Act is around $6

billion.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Six billion?

Mr. STAHL. Yes.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. That is what I am getting at. This pay increase

would amount to what percentage of $6 billion?

Mr. STAHL. If we could use a $25 million figure, which is really

only indicative of a first full year of added costs, with the most liberal

estimate, this is just applicable to H.R. 1010, and on H.R. 2015, it

would be considerably more. Then I suppose it is a matter of whatever percentage $25 million is of $6 billion.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Could we get in the record what that would be?'

Mr. STAHL. Surely.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I think somebody is figuring that out, one of

your associates.

Mr. STAHL. We will get the computation in the record. My mental

arithmetic is not good enough this morning to make up that percentage

for you.

I would caution again that this does not mean that, if this bill were

passed in this session of Congress, in fiscal year 1962, that there

would be $25 million extra cost, because it would be covering promotions made as late as June of 1962, obviously, beginning at that time.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. We were conscious of that, but the fact is that

this will be an annual amount.

Mr. STAHL. That is right.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. That we will have to include or provide for in

future years?
16 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE

Mr. STAHL. That is right. It would be a continuing feature of the

way the Classification Act is administered.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. The reason I would like to get this figure into

the record is that I am sure somebody is going to ask a question as to

whether this is another pay raise.

Mr. STAHL. I understand that.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What percentage would it be?

Mr. STAHL. I understand that, of course, it is not general across

the board. It is only applicable to an individual who is promoted.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What employees would be excluded, in general?

What employees are not under the Classificaion Act?

Mr. STAHL. The employees in general not under the Classification

Act are these: First of all, there are close to 700,000 employees paid

under what we call the wage board system. These are primarily the

so-called blue collar workers whose wages are set in accordance with

prevailing rates of pay in a given locality and whose pay adjustments

are made at least annually and are very promptly and pretty accurately responsive to economic shifts that take place in pay in private industry.

The other big groups that are not covered by the Classification Act

include the postal service and that is the biggest one—the postal field

service, I mean.

The Classification Act applies to headquarters of the Post Office

Department but the postal field service which has well over 500,000

employees has its own separate pay schedule, a statutory pay schedule

in the Postal Field Service Act.

Then the other groups are miscellaneous agencies that have special

pay systems, like the Foreign Service, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bureau of Medicine and

Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, and so on. In all of those

cases, they are usually free by regulation to make adjustments of the

kind we are talking about here.

Mr. Du',sm. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Yes.

Mr. Du',sm. As I understand it, there is a provision made for the

postal eniployee and they have a more liberal policy.

Mr. STAHL. Yes. As Mr. Messer indicated, apparently their

policy is that when they are promoted from one grade to another they

get an amount of money that is at least the equivalent of the difference

between the entrance rates between those two grades. This is

essentially what is proposed in H.R. 2015, but this would have the

result of being considerably more expensive and would result in some

very substantial increases and differences from present practice. It

might also result in placing employees because they had already

acquired a good deal of seniority in the lower grade at such a high

rate in the higher grade that they would be ahead of, or equal to

employees who had served in the higher grade. For example, it

takes a little longer to get a pay step at grade 11 and above than it

does below grade 11. It takes 18 months between pay steps but

below that it only takes 12 months to earn a pay step. If a person

is promoted from 8 or. 10 to grade 11 by virtue of the pay step he

has been in at that grade, and if he got the amount of money equivalent to the difference in the entrance rate between, let us say, grades

-9 and 11, he could be put at a pay step above a person who served
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 17

an equal length, or a longer length of time in grade 11 itself, and

working at the higher level longer.

These are among some of the technical reasons, in addition to the

total cost, why we prefer to see H.R. 1010 rather than H.R. 2015.

Perhaps my complaint about that may not be applicable to the

postal service and I am not familiar with how that operates.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Are scientific and technical personnel included

under the Classification Act?

Mr. STAHL. Most of them are, although quite a few hundred

scientific and professional people are paid under what is known as

Public Law 313 type authorizations, which is simply a provision that

salaries may be placed anywhere from $12,000 to $19,000 a year for

key scientists and engineers who are specially designated by their

agencies for that category of employment and whose qualifications

are approved by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. This Public Law 313 group would not benefit

under this legislation?

Mr. STAHL. No; but neither are they limited and restricted by the

present provisions of the Classification Act. There is no restriction

on the manner in which they would move from one rate to ano

because there are no real grades. It is just a group of salaries

from $12,000 to $19,000. They are not suffering from t • same

disability at the present time.

Incidentally, the percentage you asked for is four-te s of 1

percent.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you.

Mr. DULSKI. I have only one question.

Does this cover the people in the NASA program? I ,

Mr. STAHL. Those who are under the Classification Act.

also has some jobs excepted from the Classification Act, a couple

hundred of them. There are 290 jobs that are under a special authority that is very much like this Public Law 313. That is, they have

just a range of salaries and they put people in there.

Mr. DuLsici. They are still under the Classification Act?

Mr. STAHL. No; the 290 I referred to are not, but the remainder of

their staffs, thousands of scientific and professional people, are under

the Classification Act. This is just a select small number.

Mr. DuLsKi. The reason I asked, Mr. Stahl, is that some time ago

we had hearings on manpower utilization where they asked for supergrades and it was brought to our attention that they wanted to come

out of the Classification Act as far as the civil service is concerned,

only for the pay scale.

Mr. STAHL. As far as the civil service is concerned, these positions

we are talking about in NASA, the 290, they are not under the Classification Act, but they are under civil service in the sense they are

appointments that must be made on the basis of merit. In this case,

instead of going through the usual process of competitive examination,

their appointments are simply confirmed by a qualification review by

the Civil Service Commission. That, at least, is the general procedure

in the Public Law 313 type cases.

I think that I am correct, but that is the procedure also applicable

in NASA.

We would have to check that to make sure, but I think they have

the same provisions that other Public Law 313 type cases have.
18 GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE'

My point being this: There is a difference between being subject to

civil service, to the merit system, and being subject to a particular

salary system. They can be under one without being under the other

and in this case they are subject to the merit system but not subject

to the Classification Act, in the case of the 290 jobs.

Mr. Du',Ku. I feel if a man wants to be under the protection of

the oivil service, it is my opinion he should be covered with the same

pay scale.

Mr. STAHL. I see.

Mr. DULSKI. Not to be taken out of the pay scale.

In H.R. 1010, they still would be covered by civil service but they

would not be under the Classification Act?

Mr. STAHL. No; under H.R. 1010, this is only employees who are

under the Classification Act. It is only applicable to employees under

the Classification Act.

Mr. DULSKI. These people to which I had reference do not wish to

be under the Classification Act but under civil service protection.

Mr. STAHL. I think perhaps I can answer that this way: The reason

for the creation of these excepted pay schedules, like Public Law 313

and like $12,000 and $19,000 range, which goes slightly higher than

the Classification Act, is because primarily of restrictions on the

number of jobs that can be placed in GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18.

These are statutory restrictions by number. In a number of scientific agencies, the pressure was so great to get people with the kind

of qualifications, talents, and skills necessary in key positions, that

they sought through subject matter committees in the Congress

authority to, in effect, not be fettered by those number limitations.

Instead, they got special number limitations under a new, separate

salary scale. Employees are still, however

'

in almost all those cases,

under the civil service merit system with tenure rights and so on

that go with that.

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. One more question, Mr. Stahl.

The attorneys in the Department of Justice are not included are

they?

Mr. STAHL. Attorneys in the Department of Justice at the present

time are under the Classification Act with the exception of the district

attorneys and the assistant district attorneys.

However, the Department of Justice has a proposal here on the

Hill which would exempt a number of their attorneys in the Department of Justice from the Classification Act. It would not take them

out from under civil service, but it would provide the opportunity for

more flexible and somewhat more favorable pay scales. As of the

moment, all of them except district and assistant district attorneys

are under the Classification Act.

Mr. DULSKI. Thank you.

We have a statement here from James K. Langan, operations

director, Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO, and without

objection it will be placed in the record.

(The statement follows:)
GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM INCREASE 19

STATEMENT BY JAMES K. LANGAN, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL—CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is James K. Langan,

operations director of the Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO. The

council was composed for the purpose of coordinating and promoting the viewpoint

of its members on matters of legislation, and administration affairs affecting their

welfare. In this manner uniform views may be presented to the Members of

Congress.

We are composed of 24 affiliated unions of the AFL—CIO representing approximately 600,000 Federal employees.

We are pleased to advise this committee of our complete endorsement of H.R.

1010 introduced by Mr. Lesinski. The bill provides that in the case of the

promotion or transfer to a higher grade of an employee he will receive an increase

in salary by not less than two step increases of the grade from which he is promoted or transferred.

The intent here is to give material, tangible evidence to the employee that he is

being promoted or transferred for meritorious reasons, and not being given an

empty title without salary increase which would be no appropriate reward.

We wish to thank Mr. Lesinski for his sponsorship, and this subcommittee for

holding these hearings.

I urge that favorable consideration be given this bill in committee and support

in the House for its passage.

Mr. DuLsici. If there are no other witnesses, the subcommittee

will stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10:55 a.m., Wednesday,

August 2, 1961.)