Y saillo:e 146 (-4 (,_•-•

taig ZZ4-2,

COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICEr

GOVERNMENT

Storage

SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

HEARING

0- BEFORE THE , r

DOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SEVICE

r- OF THE

-0 COMMITTEE ON _0

rg OFFICE AND CIVILk ERVICE ra

SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 14357

A BILL TO INCREASE THE RATES OF COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL BOARDS AND APPEAL BOARDS WITHIN

THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

APRIL 18, 1966

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62-144 WASHINGTON : 1966
f

,1 4%-•'. • : 

.% 4 IL:

4 4 4 •

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SEL,V ICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

THALDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNA GA, Hawaii

PAUL J. KREBS, New Jersey

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

CflARLEs E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Ass6ciate Staff Director

JOHN H. MARTINY, COU71.8e/

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

THEODORE I. KAZY, Senior Staff Assistant

SUBC( MMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas, Chairman

THADDEUS J. DUr.SKI, New York

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNA GA, Hawaii

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

Ex Officio Voting Members

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee ROBERT I. CORBETT, Pennsylva ia

1:

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina
CON TEN TS

Statement of— Page

Hershey, Gen. Lewis B., Director, Selective Servic System, accompanied by Col. Bernard T. Franc:: III, and Mrs. Kay B. Barker_ _ _ 3

Macy, lion. John \V., Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission 16

Walters, Thomas G., legislative representative, American Federation

of Government Employees 22

Wolkomir, Nathan T., president, National Federation of Federal

Employees, accompanied by Harold E. Finnegan, legislative

assistant 24

Communications received from—

Hershey, Gen. Lewis B., to Hon. Torn Murray, chairman, Committee

on Post Office and Civil Servic s, letter dated April 15, 1966 2

_Macy, Hon. Jo'tn W., Jr., Chair urn, Civil Service Commission, to

lion. Tom Murray, chairman, i)ost 0,fice and Civil Service Committee, letter dated April 15, 1936 3

Additional material submitted—

Letters from selective service employees, submitted for the record

by Nathan T. Wolkomir 26

ILL

411

•

COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

EMPLOYEES

MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 215,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Lindley Beckworth (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BECKWORTH. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Civil Service is meeting this morning to

conduct public hearings on H.R. 14357, to increase the rates of

compensation of employees of local boards and appeal boards within

the Selective Service System.

(H.R. 14357 is as follows:)

[H.R. 14357, 89th Cong., 2d sessj

A BILL To increase the rates of compensation of employees of local boards and appeal boards within the

Selective Service System

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

America in Congress assembled, That the rates of compensation of employees of

local boards and appeal boards within the Selective Service System, whose

compensation is fixed under authority of the first proviso in section 10(b) (4) of

the Universal Military Training and Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 460(b) (4)),

shall be increased by 2.9 per centum. Each such rate as so increased shall be

rounded to the next higher dollar.

SEC. 2. The first section of this Act shall become effective at the beginning of

the first pay period which begins on or after July 1, 1966.

Mr. BECKWORTH. This bill was introduced by the Chair pursuant

to unanimous agreement of the full committee at its last regular

meeting, on March 31, 1966. The agreement was reached as a basis

for the withdrawal of an amendment to H.R. 14122 which had been

offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Henderson. The

amendment dealt with the system of compensating employees of

selective service local boards and appeal boards.

Section 10(b)(4) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act

provides that employees of the Selective Service System shall have their

compensation fixed in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949,

as amended, except that "the compensation of employees of local

boards and appeal boards may be fixed without regard to the Classification Act."

There was some misunderstanding, or difference of opinion, at the

March 31 committee meeting as to whether or to what extent the bill

then under consideration, H.R. 14122, would make certain that

1
2 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

selective service board employees would receive the same pay raises

granted by the bill for other Federal employees. My bill, which is

presently before this subcommittee, if ertacted, would have the effect

of granting comparable pay raises to selective service local and appeal

board employees regardless of any other provision of law.

The subcommittee is privileged this morning to have a distinguished

soldier and outstanding American appear and testify in person on this

measure. It is a pleaure to welcome you, General Hershey, and we

will be glad to receive your testimony at this time. I would suggest

that you introduce the members of your staff who will assist you, and

then proceed as you see fit.

I might add that I have known the very distinguished Director of

the National Selective Service System for many years, for over two

decades—in fact, nearly three. I have always had the very highest

regard for his sincerity and ability, and the fine work he undertakes

to do at all times.

I wish to include at this point in the record, without objection, a

letter written to our distinguished chairman, Hon. Tom Murray,

April 15, 1966, by the Director, General Hershey, and also a letter

that was written to Hon. Tom Murray, our chairman, April 15, 1966,

by the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, John W. Macy,

Jr.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM,

ashington, D.C., April 15, 1966.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As requested in your letter of April 13, 1966, I am

pleased to present my views and recommendations relative to H.R. 14357, a bill

"To increase the rates of compensation of employees of local boards and appeal

boards within the Selective Service System."'

The purpose of H.R. 14357 is to statutorily increase the salaries of selective

service board clerks by 2.9 percent, effective the first pay period after July 1, 1966.

I am opposed to enactment of H.R. 14357. The successful operation of the

Selective Service System is based upon the fact that it is a community function

carried out by the community. It is essential that this local board team of unpaid members and their compensated clerks be fully identified with the community. One of the most important ways in which this identification with the

community is attained is the established policy, expressed in legislation, of compensating local board clerks in accordance with community standards rather than

standards established for Federal employees generally. This policy has not

penalized local board clerks on occasions of general pay raises for Federal employees. Funds have always been provided by Congress on such occasions to

adjust Ideal board salaries consistent with these principles. Authorization for

these funds have always been pfoVided for in each of the pay adjustment acts or

subsequently enacted by the Congress.

Similar authority is contained in the provisions of H.R. 14122 passed by the

House of Representatives on April 6, 1966. It is the intention of the Director

of Selective Service, should H.R. 14122 become law, that the pay raise awarded

to the classified employees be reflected in increases in the salaries of local board

•and appeal board clerks to the extent that funds are made available and consistent with the customary method of determining the local board and appeal board

employees' compensation.

The enactment of H.R. 14357, in my 

opinion, 

therefore, is not only unnecessary

but, more important, would not be cons:stent with the statutory authority (50

App. 460(b)(4)) which places upon the Director of Sele3tive Service

responsibility for setting the salaries of local board and appeal board clerks.
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 3

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to the submission

of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on

H.R. 14357, a bill "To increase the rates of compensation of employees of local

boards and appeal boards within the Selective Service System."

Enactment of H.R. 14357 would statutorily increase the salaries of selective

,service board clerks by 2.9 percent, effective the first pay period after July 1,

1966. The Commission strongly opposes this legislation and urges that it not

be given favorable consideration.

Positions of selective service clerks have traditionally been excepted from the

nationwide statutory pay rates of the Classification Act. Since there is no law

specifying how the salaries for employees in these positions must be determined,

the Director of Selective Service, within the limits of his appropriations, may

fix and adjust their pay by the method he finds best suited to the needs of the

organization.

Officials of the Selective Service System place great emphasis on the importance

of having the boards fully identified with the community served. They have

• consistently expressed the view that one of the most important ways in which

this identification has been attained is by compensating local board clerks in

accordance with community standards rather than the standards established for

Federal employees generally.

To increase the salaries of these employees by legislation would be totally

inconsistent with the statutory authority (50 App. U.S.C. 460(b) (4)) under

which the Director of Selective Service has been given final responsibility for

•setting the salaries of local and appeal board clerks. Furthermore, this action

is unnecessary because adjustments may be made administratively whenever

the Director determines appropriate.

For the above reasons, the Commission strongly recommends against enactment of H.R. 14357.

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,

LEWIS B. HERSHEY, Director.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 15, 1966.

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

STATEMENT OF GEN. LEWIS B. HERSHEY, DIRECTOR, SELECTIVE

SERVICE SYSTEM, ACCOMPANIED BY COL. BERNARD T. FRANCK

III, AND MRS. KAY B. BARKER

General HERSHEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

I have no prepared statement. Our letter is concise in trying to

„point out that we were opposed to this legislation (a) because we

believe it to be unnecessary, and (b) we believe that the passage of it

would tend to at least cast some doubt on the present power that the

Director has to make the adjustment, which is based again on the fact

.that we are a highly decentralized system, and not only that, but our

local board clerks are a very unusual type of office managers, typists,

stenographers, and what have you. And it has been the custom for

.a quarter of a century for the Selective Service clerks at the local

board and the appeal board level to be flexible enough to be moved

in any direction that the community went. We have a great many

part-time people, which isn't necessarily impossible of classification.

But it is true that sometimes in order to have a part-time person you
4 COMPENSATION .FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

have to pay at a little different rate. So we figure that we do save

some money for the Government in areas where the rate of pay is not

so high.

And we do have power to reward unusual capacity, because we are

not restricted by the Classification Act. And for that reason, we

would prefer to continue it.

It ,has been the custom of the Director to make appropriate raises

whenever other people were raised.

I think in all fairness that I ought to say that in the application of

this I suspect there has been some selectivity in that when individuals

that were not entitled—that were not producing too well, were not

all given it. I think usually, however, most everybody got a raise

.when raises were authorized.

Of course, there has always been one factor, and always will. We

can only raise within the limits of our appropriations, when the money

is available.

I think that is all I have to say. I will be glad to answer any

questions you have.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How many employees are affected, General

Hershey?

General HERSHEY. Approximately 7,500, sir.

Mr. BECKWORTH. There have been pay raises in the past, passed by

the Congress for Federal employees. Generally, have you pursued

the policy of following those raises by raises of your own?

General HERSHEY. Yes. That has been the continuing policy

ever since the beginning, to try to reflect the other pay raises. As I

said, I thought in order to be absolutely accurate, I would not be

prepared to defend if someone could produce a person that didn't

get a raise, but I think I could produce the reason.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Are there other questions?

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I have some questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I do, too.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Matsunaga?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. These 7,500 employees, General, that you have

under your jurisdiction—were they given a pay raise the last time

that we had a general pay raise for Federal employees?

General HERSHEY. Yes, with whatever exceptions—as far as I

know, in the States we both might be interested in—I might possibly

be wrong in an individual case, but I think they got it.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. When they are hired, are they hired on the basis

of comparability to classified employees?

General HERSHEY. Well, in the first place, we do have to get them

off the register. And they do have to qualify. But I think with

some pride I would say that we Would not consider every one competent to be a local board clerk that could qualify for a clerical classification perhaps comparable to what we would get, because they have

got to have some rather peculiar qualities of getting along with the

communities and the registrants and registrants' parents where they

happen to work.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Generally speaking, how do they compare with

classified employees? Are they paid better, or equal, or generally

poorer than the comparable positions in the classified service?

General HERSHEY. Well, one of the things that would bother me

somewhere is—I would probably not be a good one to ask—I do not

believe that the rest of the Government has a comparable person that
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 5

has the individual responsibility that a local board clerk has, with the

knowledge that he has to have, and the fact that he is pretty nearly

an office manager.

Personally, I believe that they are comparable, although in areas

where wages are normally low, we will tend to reflect the local situation rather than the national situation. But on the other hand, we

probably have some very competent people that are being paid more

than we could ever possible hope to pay under a classified system

that must apply across the board. Because we have many people who

are running rather large boards alone, simply because they choose to

do it that way. And, of course, the local board is one of the factors,

because the unpaid local board has much to do and much to say to the

State director on individuals that they have there, because to a

peculiar degree the local board is dependent on how this local board

clerk can bring to them the regulations and the policies and everything

that goes with that particular case. And, of course, these local

boards—the reason I think they are pretty evident is that I am signing

25-year certificates quite frequently now, and a great many 20's, and

we have only been alive about 25 years. And we have a large number—I saw about 189 clerks last night in New Jersey. And many of

them I had seen many times, because there were a good many with

20 years' service in this group, and a few with 25. But 25 is

getting almost to the limit.

So I would not like to try to be statistical. But our clerks are the

individuals that have made the image of the Selective Service System,

because they are the individuals that have met the registrants, also.

And I can't pay too high tribute to them. And I presume that there

is something that attracts them. One thing is, I think, the challenge

of it, and the fact that they think they are doing something for the

Federal Government.

We had about 6 or 7 years that we led in buying bonds, which was

almost completely among the local board clerks, because I have only

got 1,600 that can buy bonds anywhere else. So therefore when we

have 40-some States, and every one of them is participating in bond

buying, I think that indicates the type of morale we have. And, of

course, I think one of the reasons is, they see registrants who have

obligations every day, and therefore they feel their obligation a great

deal more than perhaps someone would elsewhere.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. What has been your turnover, and how does it

compare with other regular Federal agencies?

General HERSHEY. I am goinc,

b

to make a statement on that, and

then we will try to get some statistical information that will justify

what I am going to say.

Personally, I think we have had the greatest stability. And I

rather challenge any other—of course, we are a smaller group, we tend

to know each other personally quite a little more. But I think that

we have had a tremendously favorable thing in the turnover. And

we do have at times in areas where some new development is coming

in or some new agency is coming in that will perhaps have a little

better pay rate—sometimes bother us, but the individuals they

usually get are the ones we have recently acquired, we don't loose

the ones that have been with us a long time. And that is not only

true of local board clerks, but local board members. In fact, I think

62-144-66,-2
6 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

at times we are critized a little bit because people think we belong to

the last generation instead of this one.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Have you had any complaints from any of the

employees that the pay has been too low?

General HERSHEY. Well, I think there has been some movement—

and to me it has always been a reasonably small minority—of individuals who want to be classified. I have found some, I would not

say more than 5 or 10 percent. In New Jersey the other night, there

was a group debating the question of classification. 'We talked

about it at some length. And I think the majority, quite a large

majority, were satisfied with what they are doing. They want a raise

in pay, they are looking forward to it. And that is most natural

and human. But we do not have—my correspondence on that,

particular line is much smaller than it is with some things that registrants would like to have.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Then you are opposed to any move toward placing your employees under the Classification Act?

General HERSHEY. That is right. I told the clerks in New Jerseythat until I could be assured (a) that the Government and the Selective Service System and the girls themselves were in favor of it— because most of them are girls—I would have to oppose it. I think that

we have flexibility that we would lose by that. I think it is difficult

to tell the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission when he is

present that I don't care to be under him, but I must, because that is

true.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. You are also opposed to the inclusion of your

employees in any general pay raise intended for all Federal employees?

General HERSHEY. I think I ought to explain that, sir. In the

first place, I expect to make the same pay raise that other people

make. I am a little embarrassed to say this. But the thing I am

always afraid of is, when we get special legislation that in any way

applies to some general authority I have got, the first thing you know

some lawyer is pleading that if the Congress had expected me to keep

the general authority they would not have gone into it especially.

So I have some worry always when we start legislating something

for one time. We have got now power to do it any time. And

while I might not lose it on this bill, I won't gain. And there is a

chance to lose. And therefore, that is why—that is one of the one

or two reasons why I am opposed.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. No further questions.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. General Hershey, I want to join with my chairman

to say that I am honored to have you here with us this morning.

I know of no activity of our Government that has the greater confidence of the people than the Selective Service System. I think

the country owes you a debt of gratitude for what you have done in

&very trying situation.

I will just ask you some fundamental questions. Let's take the

town of 18,000 people in north Pennsylvania that I come from.

We did have a lady—a Mrs. Palmer—who worked for us for some

20 years in selective service, and as you say, she loved her job.

She finally had to retire, and when she was replaced by another clerk,

who fixed the salary of this relatively green person that came in?

General HERSHEY. The director of selective service in Pennsylvania. But I am sure General Gross has to know something about
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 7

what the feel is of his local board members too, because he has them

to live with, they d( n't get paid, and therefore, the State director

always has to live wit h his local board, and of course, the local boards

have to live with the clerks.

But the State director is the answer.

Mr. JOHNSON. In ether words, the local board would notify the

State director that ti ere was a vacancy in this office, and that they

were about to hire a certain person—and the local board recommends

a certain salary?

General HERSHEY. No; the State director hires them.

Mr. JOHNSON. The State director hires them?

General HERSHEY. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. But would he confer with the local board as to

what the starting salary ought to be?

General HERSHEY. I am sure he would. Because in the first place

sometimes the problem has something to do with whether you get

somebody that the lecal board wants, because it is a matter of adjustment. That is one of the flexibilities that I am in favor of maintaining.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you were to employ a new clerk at an office in a

town of 18,000 people, what would the average starting salary be?

General HERSHEY. Well, our average for the years ahead of us is

about $4,700. I would think probably seven or eight hundred less

than that.

Mr. JOHNSON. You start a person off with about $4,000?

General HERSHEY. Of course, it might be less. It would give a

fair amount at 10 percent—it would be more than 10 percent I

suppose you have got 2,500, too—of course, there is probably a

county around that. too.

Mr. JOHNSON. The county has 56,000 people.

General HERSHEY. Then you would probably have 5,000 or 6,000

registrants there. And that would be a factor, because you would

tend to pay more. And especially, another thing you get into, if a

girl is doing that work by herself because she chooses to, she would

probably get more money than if we had to hire two. I would rather

check it, but I am guessing $4,000 or a little less for the starting salary.

Mr. JOHNSON. K- ow—proportional increases in her salary—would

they be recommended to that office by the State director?

General HERSHEY. The State director would handle it. He has

got authority to change her salary within the limits of his money.

Mr. JOHNSON. So what you are saying is that throughout the

Nation, pretty generally, each board stands on its own two feet, and

salaries of employees would vary from board to board, depending on

the circumstances?

General HERSHEY. That is right. And of course, the raises will

depend, first, on how good they are and how much work they are

doing. And we have been through a rather rough time. I don't

want to overdo it by using February of 1965 and February this year

as the 2 months, tut it happens that in those 2 cases we had 10 times

as many inducted this February as we did last February, and we

only increased our employees somewhere between 10 and 12 percent.

And therefore the load that these girls pick up within the limits of

what we have got money for is another factor in this salary. And

personally, it is so different so many places that I still have the confidence that the people who ale up there are—of course, they do have a
8 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

limitation in the amount of money I am able to get for them, but

within that limitation I tend to trust them.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then your testimony this morning is that you like

this ability to have discretion in raising the salaries, and that if this

bill passes it will, in effect, put you in a straightjacket, and, maybe by

inference at least, take away the power that you have at the present

time to do it.

General HERSHEY. That is true, and I am very sensitive to anything that Congress does, even if it does not legislate. I had a situation during World War II where We started to send some conscientious

objectors to China on a project over there that the U.S. Army was

running. And when they are down about Capetown the Congress

put a rider on the then War Department appropriation bill to prohibit,

these people from going—which didn't affect me at all. But I unloaded them at Capetown and brought them back, because the intent

of Congress was to not have them go. And I am just a little selfish,

because living today tends to make it easier tomorrow.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

General, I too want to join my colleagues in paying great tribute to

the results that the Selective Service System has brought about

through its rather long history.

I think you would agree with me that the employees from the top

to the bottom that have contributed most to the final record have been

the local board office managers.

General HERSHEY. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. It has been my interest to see that these people,

who are most responsible for the great success that our country has

had, be treated as Congress thinks Federal employees ought to be

treated.

I would like to ask this question. Do you consider that the local

board employees are Federal employees?

General HERSHEY. Oh, yes; because of the fact that obviously they

are federally paid, federally chosen, and everything else.

I would like to say, though, that the Selective Service System's

relation to this personally, I believe, cannot be compared with any

other relation of any other Federal agency in the States.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is most unusual, isn't it?

General HERSHEY. It is a most unusual one. I am quite familiar

with the Old North State, I have a daughter-in-law that comes from

there. And I knew General Metz for a long time, and I have known

the people that have come since. But just the same, we are more of a

family than any agency I know Of. Of course, I know more about this

agency. We are closer to the States. They are Federal employees;

yes.

• Mr. HENDERSON. How about their retirement and health benefits?

General HERSHEY. It is comparable to all classified employees.

Mr. HENDERSON. So for all practical purposes, they are Federal

employees for every condition except pay?

General HERSHEY. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wonder if you could inform the committee

what the recent pay in the Old North State of North Carolina is.

General HERSHEY. I would be glad to furnish it. I do not have it

with me.
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 9

Mr. HENDERSON. I have a letter that I wrote in 1963—and I think

that I obtained these figures from your office, sir—which says that on

June 30, 1960—the latest date on which we have nationwide statistics the average salary of the clerk and the local board in North

Carolina was $3,360 per year. At the same time the average rate

for West Virginia was $3,645, for Tennessee it was $3,380, and for South

Carolina it was $3,585. As I understood your testimony this

morning, the average over the Nation today is about $4,700, as a

starting salary.

General HERSHEY. That is for 1967; it is what we budget for 1967.

What is the one for 1966?

Colonel FRANCK. $4,690. It is $4,491 for 1965, $4,619 for 1966,

and $4,730 for 1967.

General HERSHEY. So I would not want to say how much has

been reflected since 1963. And I would be the last one to say that

these are all comparable between States, or of one. But on the

other hand, there is sufficient authority, and therefore you could

blame me if there was a wide discrepancy that there was no reason

for and I didn't do something about it.

Mr. HENDERSON. General, when I came here this morning I was

more interested in the pay of these employees, but frankly—as I have

heard your testimony—I think you have made the best case that

could be made for bringing these employees under the Federal pay

system. However, this will be the decision of the distinguished

committee here.

I would just like to ask you one or two more questions.

Am I correct that Public Law 88-631, signed by the President on

October 8, 1964, required salary increases of the local draft board

clerks?

General HERSHEY. I am not too certain. But I would say no.

I would say that this was an indication of Congress' intent, and that

I would be justified as an administrator to use my power to raise

the others comparably. And I think that is what we did. But I

could be wrong. But I do not believe that it was required by the law.

Mr. HENDERSON. This brings on another question. Did every

clerk in every board over the Nation get that increase, Als a result?

General HERSHEY. I would want to say no, because one of the

problems we get into, we will have places where both the local board

and the State director will feel they are already paying perhaps more,

and we will have a few places that I hear about occasionally where the

local board has a little different opinion than the State director,

which is natural.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman—I would stand corrected by the

counsel of the committee—but the evidence I have 'is a letter of

October 19, 1964, in which I wrote a local draft board employee that

I was advised by our committee staff that the effect of the language

in section 3 of Public Law 88-631, which amended section 503 of the

Classification Act, would give each employee comparable wages to

that provided in the bill. This was not done.

General HERSHEY. You may be right, Mr. Henderson. I wanted

to be a lawyer, but never got to be one.

Mr. HENDERSON. What I would like to know is did you give it to

them? First of all, was it the intent of Congress that 'they get the

increase, and secondly, did they get it?
10 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that the general is right—

that what the system did was to say to the State boards, you may do

it. I think that we will find, as the general said, some isolated cases

where they determined that the employees had not performed and

did not get it. Now, was that the intent of Congress, is the question

that I raise.

Mr. BECKWORTH. It is my understanding that it is true.

General HERSHEY. I would like to say, Mr. Henderson, in that

regard, that the people that do not get it, our agency is so small, and

the Natioaal Director is easy to see, the door is always open. And I

don't say that they would get it by coming to us. But I think most

of them know that they can—very few of them COM9 to Washington

that don't come up to see us.

Mr. HENDERSON. One further problem that I wanted to be sure

that the committee had in mind. Since we have s lid that these are

Federal employees for all intents and purposes exc?,pt pay, I would

like to ask if you, as the Director, have required or do you know of

any State that has made a study of the pay schedule of the local board

employees, as compared to other Federal employees working in the

courthouse complex. I am thinking about ASCS employees and

Farmers Home Administration employees. I use these because I

come from a rural area. You might take the Small Business Administration, and many other Federal agencies. Their employees are

working almost next door to your local draft board office managers.

I agree with the statement which you make that your office managers

are administering—and have done an excellent job of administering—

a colinplex ,Fedeatl .act. if you -compare their salaries with, agricultural employees, who were doing repetitive day-by-day jobs, I think

that, even with that comparison, you would find that the pay of your

local board employees is considerably less. I am almost tempted to

ask if there has been a comparison made with postal clerks and mail

carriers. I don't know that these are comparable jobs. I am thinking

about a comparable job rate, such as the cotirthouse clerks where most

of your local boards are located.

General HERSHEY. I can't tell you from—of course, this is always

a problem with us, because some of these people hire our people

away from us. But on the other hand, they are generally the individuals who haven't been with us too long.

There are some things—and this may sound corny—but there are

reasons why people work places in addition to salary. And I realize

that is a little too idealistic. But I just happen to believe—and I am

not trying to defend it—there is nobody in the world that knows that

he lives by the grace of these local boards any more than I do. These

local board clerks, particularly the ones that have created the image

of the Selective Service System, there is no question about it, -they

talk to the registrants, they talk to the mothers, and they talk to the

fathers, they are the ones that are on, the firiag line. And we do

have the problem that you bring up shen we compared them with the

county officials, because we have quite a little space we still get free.

And when they are right side of the county officials, you see, that

worries us a little too. .

So we get cauaht both ways.

But I would like to tell you about them. There is one in north

Jersey, where the con petition widi bils,ness and everything else is

rather keen. But whether we have had a dozen students or two
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 11

dozen in the last year, I know we are always in it, because we have a

problem of procuring clerks.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying I commend

the general. I say that the time has arrived when we should reward

these Federal employees, rather than give them the 25-year certificate.

I believe they would be much happier, and they would feel that the

Congress and the Director of Selective Service had recognized the

tremendous jobs that they have done, if they were to get pay and

retirement comparable to other Federal employees—much more so

than they would a very beautiful certificate, which every Member of

Congress and the Selective Service Director ought to give them, in

addition to their pay.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. General Hershey, I want to join my colleagues

in saying how nice it is for you to come down and testify this morning.

I know that many of the things that you have said this morning

about your fine system are true, because my wife's father serves on a

selective service board out in Kansas. He lost two sons in World

War II. He was 'put on. the local board and has remained on the

board up until now.

I know, also, that every time he has come to Washington to visit

us he has gone to your office to say hello. I know of the high esteem

in which he holds you.

I know the problems that he has in that community out there in

Ellsworth County, with the registrants and their families. I know

how much he relies on the local clerks and office managers.

But, of course, we on this committee—whether we are from North

Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas, or wherever we are from—are concerned

with the national situation with respect to the employees. We are

deeply concerned, also, with the registrants and with the general

population and their attitude toward the draft.

On that subject, as you know, a number of my colleagues and

I hope that Congress will soon conduct a review of the draft, and an

inquiry into the draft. The Armed Services Committee is the proper

forum, certainly not this committee. Chairman Rivers has said that

he will invite you up before his committee soon, has he invited you

yet?

General HERSHEY. No, sir. I think they have had perhaps more

important things than me. I don't know.

I think that what the scheduling is in fact, I am a little concerned

about it, because I am engaged somewhat now in a field trip, and I

have been wondering when that is going to be. He has told me that I

am going to be up there.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. We appreciate, by the way, your interrupting

your field trip to come back this morning. I understand you did

interrupt it to come back.

General HERSHEY. One i always flattered IA hen they get a chance

to be before any committee—and I would think this would be the best

one this morning.

Mr. LLSWORTH. General, one thing, as I have looked into the

situation of the employees of the System, I have noticed that there is

a wide disparity from State to State as to ratio between the number

of employees and the number of people in the population or the number

of males between 18 and 25, or the number of registrants. For

example, in Arkansas there is 1 employee to every 3,800 registrants,
12 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

whereas in Connecticut it is 1 employee to every 6,200 registrants.

In Pennsylvania it is 1 employee to every 6,100 registrants, and in

Kansas it is 1 employee to every 2,900 registrants.

Now, this is on the basis in your 1965 report. So that, for example—

comparing Arkansas and Connecticut—Connecticut with more

registrants uses 30 percent fewer people to do its job than Arkansas.

Would you care to comment on that?

General HERSHEY. I could comment on that. The one that bothers

me a little bit is the comparison between Arkansas and Kansas. In

the first place, there is no question that if you have people in condensed

areas you can service them with less people. In fact, my Alaskan

record would be probably much worse than that. And in fact the

cost even of inducting a person in Alaska is much, much greater than

in the District of Columbia or Connecticut.

I could understand easily why there would be a difference between

Arkapsas and Connecticut.

What I heard on Kansas and Arkansas, that should not vary so

much, because both of you tend to be more rural, and there is the

necessity of having a local board in each county. And many of the

counties are not very large. And you have to have the same amount

of intelligence in a board which only has 200 or 300 that you would

have to have in one of 3,000. It happens that in my hometown out

in Indiana, which is a rural area, we have the same clerk that started

there in 1940, and she happened to have been a sixth grader when

I taught school. And she is still there. But she probably could take

another thousand registrants. And yet we have had her at times on

only 3 days a week.

You see, that is another thing. Unless I knew how many of the

people in Connecticut were full time and how many in Arkansas were

part time—that might have some effect.

But I am not surprised that the heavier population area would

have more registrants per clerk. In fact, I am president of the Boy

Scouts in this area, and up in the mountains out here in the West,

I can't possibly have as many boys per professional as I can have in

Anacostia.

Mr. ELLswoRTH. Thank you very much.

General, what about the use of computers and automatic data processing techniques in the Selective Service System? Do you have employees trained or facilities to handle that kind of equipment?

General HERSHEY. We happen to have about 150 earmarked officers, and it happens that we have about a- dozen or 15 of them that

are in that field. And we have had at least three study groups in.

Now, there is nothing that becomes final in my estimation, because

I still look for the times. But what they have told me each time

was that if he wanted to go into the computer business, we had to

get .out of the delegated business. We delegate at the present time

great authority to the local boards.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Are you saying to this committee that it is inconsistent to have a Selective Service System with local autonomy and

authority and using computer equipment?

General HERSHEY, I don't know as I want to say that, beeauSe I

am not too much of an expert on it. But we did have a case—the

fellow who has the comparable job to mine in Germany was over here

last spring, and he was very much interested to getting every registrant

reduced to a card so that if you had to call up 500—his calls are much
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 13

smaller than ours—but if he did, he could push the buttons, run out

the cards, and then send the word out. In fact, they do not have

the local board system like we do. And he seemed to think that it

would be rather dangerous to delegate this to the boards. Personally,

I happen to be completely on the other side. And to try to fix up

records so that you could use them in the mass—perhaps you could

in someway have the local board make the estimate. But it chancres

from time to time. And we frankly have never been able to find

where we could run a computerized system with the decentralized

system that we have. That does not mean that in the future we

may not find it out. I am just being current.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you very much.

One last question. As you say, the local boards do have a lot of

authority and autonomy which has been delegated to them. Several

times today you have made the point about how important it was

for the local employees to get along with registrants and registrants'

families. Now, looking at some of the areas in our Nation where we

have a very high percentage of Negroes. Do you know what percentage of your employees in some of the Southern States, where we

have a high percentage of Negroes in the population, are Negroes?

General HERSHEY. Let me say right in the beginning that it is very,

very small, that it is greater than it was, and if everything goes as it

seems to be going, we are going to increase. Now, we will not increase

as rapidly as I would like to. I want to get quite clear on this. In

1948, the Selective Service System removed any relation to color from

its forms. We were the first agency that did it. And I think there are

quite a few at the present time that have not done it. But just the

same I am not satisfied, and there is nobody in our system from our

State directors down that does not know that I am not satisfied, with

what we have done. But there is a problem, because one of the things,

you have got to find competency that is accepted as competency. You

have got to get people to apply. And I think that the Chairman of the

Civil Service Commission is better able to tell you how very difficult

it is to get individuals on these rosters so that they become eligible

to be hired. But I am quite optimistic.

There is one State in the South where one of the biracial boards that

is engaged now in trying to do something about this would not agree on

anybody else except the State director of selective service to be the

chairman of that board. And I would rather say it off the record,

although it does not make any difference, it happens to be Mississippi.

And I know Governor Johnson very well, and Governor Johnson I

think is putting forth a great deal of effort. And your chairman's

State has done a great deal. Of course, in his State we have other

minorities too. And we have that problem.

I could not agree with you more. And one of the problems we

have had is that we have no turnover much in local board clerks or

local board members. And you can't put someone in until somebody

goes out. And that is one of the reasons that I have taken as some

means of figuring that our local board members and our local board

clerks felt that they belonged to this selective service family—and

maybe they have stayed in sometimes when they didn't get as much.

But I would not argue at all with what we got. But we started where

everybody started.

62-144----66 3
14 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

I will say this, that we had local board members in 1940 in some of

the States in the South. And I personally—and obviously I am

prejudiced—I think we have been with the wave of the future rather

than the past. And that is a field that anybody can help me in.

But on the other hand, you can't replace people until they leave.

They have the right to be there. And you have to find somebody

that is on the roster, that has signified their intentions of wanting to be.

That is about the story.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Dulski.

Mr. DuLsiu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to add my accolades to the general for being present here

this morning to enlighten us on some of the important factors of our

selective service area.

I am going to go to a more sensitive area. Are your employees

under the Hatch Act?

General HERSHEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. Du',sm. I am going to develop some legislative history

so that I can use it in answering some of my correspondence. Do

your boards resent if a Congressman mails in a letter asking for a

review of a case?

General HERSHEY. A great majority do not, but I am sure that

there are individuals that do. I have got the finest bunch of State

directors in the world, but sometimes they resent the fact that I get

into it. But on the other hand, I took an oath, and that is all there

is to that. But human beings being what they are, of course we

undoubtedly have some.

Now, that is not what we are looking for. It is just some of the

shortcomings that we have in a thing that is operated by human

beings.

Mr. Du'Asia. General, I know that many times an applicant, or

shall I say, a draftee gets a card, and goes into the draft board. He

is accepted. Right away mother and dad come down and say, visit

your Congressman. Now, you know as well as I do that we have no

authority. The only thing we can ask is a review of the case, and

that is the question that I have in mind. Is there any resentment,

once the draftee and the applicant is accepted, if we mail you a letter

to review the case? Is there a resentment on the local level and on the

State level, or on the National level?

General HERSHEY. Well, I think probably that there are times

that the National Director—he is one person—it is a little easier to

fix responsibility by saying that he is snooping in the case. And I

have never worried because people said that the Members of Congress

were putting pressure on me, because they never have. They asked

for information which they are entitled to. They are the one area

where they are representing the people. And if they don't do what

they can for them, I don't know what the people have a right to think.

So I have no worry about that.

But on the other hand, I am not going to say that—I don't have

very many resignations. Once in a great while when I have taken

issue with a local board and taken an appeal, after they made an

appeal, I have had on occasion—over the last 5 years I suppose I can

count the occasions on my fingers—but the great majority of them—

even some that did resign resigned, I think, because they figured that
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 15

they just about had to do it maybe with public sentiment worrying

them a little, which happens at times.

Mr. DuLsKi. Thank you very much.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Hershey, this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to meet you.

I have known of you by reputation for many years. I know that

you have done an excellent job with the Selective Service System,

and you can rightly be proud of the local employees that work in

the system, and the job that they have done.

I regret, however, that on this first meeting I find myself in disagreement with you. I am for this bill that Mr. Beckworth has

introduced, and I think it is only right. You have heard some of

the statements that my colleague from North Carolina has made.

I feel that there perhaps are some discrepancies in pay of the employees around the country, and that we, the Congress—who have

the responsibility for seeing that Federal workers are adequately

compensated—should make sure that all of these Selective Service

System employees at least are treated the same as the other Federal

employees. As I see it, that is the purpose of Mr. Beckworth's bill.

You have stated that you have the power to make this determination, and of course, we all know that this is true. And if so, I think

that rather than resisting this bill, really you should be here today

demanding more money for these employees who have done such a

good job. That is the only statement that I want to make. I just

want to give you the benefit of my thinking on it, sir.

General HERSHEY. In the first place, you can imagine that I am in

an awkward position when I seem to deny my people something.

But I could easily be wrong. I have had that experience many times.

But I happen to believe in the long range, that I am now defending

their position because this bill would only give them wheatever it is

for this year. And I think that it challenges to some extent my

power to give them something maybe sometime when they had a

5 or 10 percent raise.

Now, I would agree with you wholly. And not only that, I have

the greatest respect for people who disagree with me. But on the

other hand, the only thing I can do is to react to the problems as I

see them.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. No other questions, Mr. Chairme:i.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how refreshing

it is to have a witness even suggest that he might be wrong—especially

when he has such a record of being as right as he has been for so long.

Let me tell you that we feel more kindly toward you after your testimony this morning. I think your response to the gentleman from

North Carolina was a heartwarming experience to me. I want to

commend you for your presentation.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Any further questions?

Thank you very much, General.

Our next witness is the Honorable John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman

of the U.S. Civil Service Commission.
16 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. MACY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com- mittee. I too want to indicate my pleasure in hearing the testimony

that has just been presented to you. It is indeed refreshing and rewarding to hear such an exposition.

I have a brief written statement which I would like to read with

your permission, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Proceed, Mr. Macy.

Mr. MACY. Thank you for this opportunity to give you my views

of H.R. 14357. Although I do not favor enactment of this bill, I

would hasten to emphasize that this should not be interpreted as opposition to a salary increase for the selective service clerks covered by its provisions.

My position is that legislative action increasing salaries for positions outside the statutory schedules is unnecessary and is inconsistent with

the authority- of agency heads to fix and adjust such rates within the limits of their appropriations.

H.R. 14357 would statutorily raise the salaries for selective service clerks in local and appeal boards by 2.9 percent, effective the first

pay period after July 1, 1966. This proposed increase, both as to

amount and effective date, is the same as that which the House recently approved in H.R. 14122 for employees under the Classification Act general schedule and other similar statutory shedules.

Positions of the board clerks have traditionally been excepted from the nationwide statutory pay rates of the Classification Act. Since there is no law specifying how the salaries for employees in these positions must be determined, the Director of Selective Service may fix their pay by the method he finds best suited to meet the needs

of the organization. Because of the emphasis which Selective Service officials place on the need to preserve the community character of the boards, salaries of the clerks have been related to rates paid in the localities which they serve. To the extent that appropriations are available, the Director may change the pay of these employees at any time without further action by the Congress.

Board clerks in the Selective Service System make up only one of a

number of groups of employees who are not paid under statutory

salary schedules. For example, enumerators in the Bureau of Census, teaching personnel at the naval colleges and employees of international organizations under the State Department are all paid at adminis- tratively determined rates. Entire agencies such as the Atomic

Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Security Agency, and the Central Iritelligence Agency have also been given authority to fix and adjust the rates of their employees by ad- ministrative action. No statutory increase like that in H.R. 14357 is proposed for these other groups and I do not think it should be.

Some of the organizations which use administratively determined

pay systems have adopted the practice of relating salaries to rates

of the statutory schedules and making adjustments to coincide with those approved by the Congress. When Congress enacts a retro- active increase in statutory schedules, a provision is generally included permitting these agencies to make similar retroactive increases, a

type of action for which they do not otherwise have authority. You will recall that this provision was inadvertently omitted from the 1964
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 17

pay bill but was enacted shortly thereafter by appropriate amendment

in another law. Other than this, however, the agencies concerned

have all the authority they need to make adjustments paralleling the

adjustments Congress makes in statutory schedules or on whatever

other bases are appropriate under their administratively designed pay

systems.

Since the Selective Service System already has all the authority

needed to make whatever salary adjustments it considers appropriate

for the board clerks, and since changes in the rates for other groups

under similar pay authorities will be left to the discretion of the

agency heads, there is no basis or need for singling out the board clerks

for statutory increases which are not being prescribed for the other

groups.

Mr. Chairman, that in effect is my support for the Civil Service

Commission of the position taken by General Hershey in his earlier

testimony.

Mr. Du-Lsiu (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Macy. Your statement

is brief and very concise. It is almost self-explanatory. I do not

think that there are very many questions I can ask.

When we budget the Selective Service there is an amount—x number of dollars. Suppose the board decides to increase the salaries,

would the money be in the budget, or would they have to have a supplemental appropriation?

Mr. MACY. The money would only be available if there were certain absorptions possible within the amount already appropriated.

I would assume that the bulk of any such funds would have to be

appropriated in a supplemental in order to cover the increase.

Mr. DuLsiu. Thank you very much.

Mr. Matsunaga?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macy, on page 2 you state that to the extent appropriations

are available, the Director may change the pay of these employees

at any time without further action by Congress. Has there been an

experience where the salaries have been adjusted downward, rather

than upward, because of the lack of appropriations?

Mr. MACY. None that I know of, Mr. Matsunaga. And I am sure

that I would have heard of it if that had been the case.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. But it could be?

Mr. MACY. Theoretically it could be. If the appropriation was

cut, and there were inadequate funds to cover the salaries of the

employees then on the rolls, the only alternative that—well, there

would be two possibilities available to the Director. One would be

a reduction in the number of jobs to thereby pick up enough money

to cover the salaries, or a reduction in salary. I would assume that

the more practical would be the former in most instances where that

kind of a development occurred.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. You mentioned other agencies involved who find

themselves in a similar situation. Would you have any objection to

inclusion of all the other agencies under a similar bill?

Mr. MACY. My view would be that Congress by previous action

has determined that administrative discretion should govern in setting

the salary rates for those particular agencies, and that consequently

special legislative authority with relation to this increase is not

required. Basically I would have no objection if the Congress felt

that there was need to reverse that earlier position. But I know that
18 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

in the case of the Atomic Energy Commission, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, there is a long tradition, based on the initial congressional action, relating to their salary system on a locally determined basis. As General Hershey has testified, it has been the view of the Na- tional L irector and the Congress that the Selective Service System is primarily community oriented, and that it is more appropriate that the rates of pay be in keeping with the rates in the community than in keeping with any national schedule.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. The blue-collar workers have a wage.board system set up wherein such comparability at the local level is somewhat assured. Does the Selective Service, or other agencies mentioned in your testimony, have any such wage boards?

Mr. MACY. I would say in most of the other agencies that I have referred to there is a use made of the wage boards of other agencies under the system in setting rates of pay. As General Her. hey testi- fied, in the Selective Service System there is a local determination by the State director, with advice from the local board, in setting the rates. There is not a situation comparable to the wage board that exists in the Defense Department or in other departments and agencies. Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, are you satisfied that the adjustments being made from time to tune, if any, are proper and in accordance with sound practice? Mr. MACY. I support General Hershey's statement.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. No further questions.

Mr. DuLsx.i. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Macy, we also want to welcome you here this morning. You are a relatively frequent visitor of ours, although we never see General Hershey. We are awfully glad to see you here this morning.

I was interested, as Congressman Matsunaga was, in the remunera- tion of the different organizations that now fix salaries administra- tively, outside of the enumerators of the Bureau of the Census, which are apparently only every 4 years. In the other six that you men- tioned, teachers and employees of the international organizations under the State Department, Atomic Energy Commission, TVA, National Security Agency, and the CIA, about how many 'employees would that encompass? Would you say, offhand?

Mr. MACY. Well, on the last two I am not privy to the exact number.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is probably classified.

Mr. MACY. That is classified. As I recall it, the Atomic Energy Commission has on its own direct payroll around 7,000 people. The Tennessee Valley Authority—it fluctuates, depending upon the amount of construction that is going on. But my recollection is that that is in the neighborhood of 15,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. I notice these agencies that you mentioned are agen- cies which require a relatively high type of skilled person, and I can see where we in the Congress could not very well fit them ht.() a y

particular salary schedule.

Mr. MACY. As fa., as the Atomic,Energy,Commigsion i concerned, they have traditionally followed very closely the sala.,•y adjustments that Congress has authorized for the statutory schedules. And their own pay system is closely related to the Classification Act, bu. with more flexibility than the Classification Act would provide.
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 19

TVA, on the other hand, has built its whole salary system around

the valley in which they ope ate. They have designed a special

system of their own, which has been in effect since 1933, 33 years.

And they are ve .y proud of that system and its capability in properly

compensating the people that are there.

So that those two cases are quite different.

As far as the intelligence agencies are concerned, they have to have

a special system because of the highly classified nature of their operation. In other words, I feel that in each of these cases, as in the

case of Selective Service, there is a special operating condition related

to their mission that calls for an exception from the statutory provision.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you know of any movement on the part of the

six agencies that you mentioned other than the Bureau of the Census

enumerato s, or is there any pressu e, let's say, being brought on you

or anybody to take them away from the administrative method of

fixing salaries and putting them under a blanket salary autholization

by Congress?

Mr. MACY. No. The only one that I am aware of is the interest

of some of the selective service employees to have their jobs covered

by the Classification Act.

Mr. JOHNSON. What particular group represents the Selective

Service clerks? Do they have an organization?

Mr. MACY. I think the two gentlemen who will follow me on the

stand representing the AFGE and the NFFE have some clerks among

these members whom they will represent.

Mr. JOHNSON. IS it a broad-based movement on the part of these

clerks of the Selective Service in asking that we and Congress put

them under another blanket provision?

Mr. MACY. I gathered from the comments that General Hershey

made that it is his belief that it is a relatively small number that are

campaigning for coverage under the Classification Act.

I would say, in answer to your earlier question, that on the contrary these agencies, from the management point of view, clearly

clesire.to keep their discretion. If they react as General Hershey did,

they have no desire to come under the Civil Service Commission with

its responsibility for administering the Classification Act, because the

Commission has the responsibility to set the standards, even though

the agency would actually classify the jobs within its own organization, and by that act set the individual salaries.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. - Thank you, Mr. Macy.

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macy, you state that some organizations which are not covered

tinder civil service do adopt the policies, as I understand it, of determining the pay according to the statutory schedules?

Mr. MACY. That is correct.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. The Selective Service System

is not one of these organizations; is that correct?

Mr. MACY. Again, let me use the Atomic Energy. Commission as an

illustration. I hey have set up their salary structure so that it is

roughly parallel to the Classification Act. And they act immediately

to put into effect in that salary structure any changes in pay that the

Congress authorizes for the Classification Act. In the Selective

Service System, as General Hershey has stated, this is locally determined. And there is not a national scale or a national structure.
20 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

And as he has testified, subsequent to each congressional action on

pay he has reviewed the entire pay schedule of Selective Service and has for the most part applied the percentage of increase in the general

pay action to the employees in Selective Service. So that I would

say that he has followed it, but not in the same form that these others have followed it.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. You are saying that he is given essentially the same percentage increases in pay, but that the statutory schedules are not set up?

Mr. MACY. That is correct. In other words, he is not bound by a

statutory schedule, he has a greater degree of discretion.

Mr. BROYHILL of N orth Carolina. Some of these employees, who

are outside of civil service, you have advocated bringing into the civil service system?

Mr. MACY. Let me make a distinction in response to that. These selective service employees are under civil service in the sense that they are appointed under all the provisions of the Civil Service Act.

As the general testified, they are selected from a civil service register that is made available from a competitive examination in the com- munity. So they are civil service employees. The exception is exclusively in the salary area. This is not the same as the group of Agriculture employees that I testified on not so long ago, where I

recommended that rather than extend to them certain benefits that

accrue to Federal employees, that they be made Federal employees.

In this case you have all of the Federal statutes applicable, as was indicated in response to Mr. Henderson's question, with the exception of the salary statute. So they are quite different from the other

groups.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Thank you for that explanation.

Mr. DuLsKi. The next colleague I will call upon is not a member of the subcommittee but is a very valuable member of the full committee, Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank ybu, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Macy, I think it has been fairly well brought out in response to other questions, that these agencies, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority, in their adminis- trative procedures do provide for a uniform pay schedule for their emPloyees. There is not the authority as is in the State directors of selective service to set the salaries?

Mr. MACY. Well, they have the authority to set the salaries.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is done in the central office here in Washington in the case of Atomic Energy, and I presume the Tennessee Valley Authority in its central office; is it not?

Mr. MACY. Yes, in its central hoadquarters in Knoxville. And I

do not believe that there is an exact parallel to the situation that prevails in selective service, again because of the high degree of dele- gation to the State and locality in the operation of the system.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hearing this morning is fairly well pointed to the immediate question of giving these employees the same increases as the pay bill that is now working its way through Congress, having been reported out by our full com- mittee and passed by the House. I would like to really get in focus that I think the concern of myself and many other members is not on this immediate question. • I have great confidence that General Hershey and the local board will, within the appropriated funds, do a
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 21

good job of providing this increase to the employees. The immediate

legislation is not as important, in my opinion, as finally solving the

problem of the pay schedules. I wonder if I could ask the Chairman

of the Civil Service Commission a question along those lines. Would

you think you would be responsive if this subcommittee, on its own

motion, wrote a letter to you and General Hershey requestina

b

that

you set up a committee or an organization, task force, or whatever,

to take a new look—make a new study? About the only thing that

Members of Congress have offered, and that I have been interested

in, is to go ahead and bring these employees under the Classification

Act for pay. Perhaps you could make a good case, as I think the

general has done this morning, not to take that action, but perhaps

you could explore many other things that could be done, such as a

comparable schedule with the Atomic Energy, or a schedule comparable to the Classification Act.

What I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, is that we find some way

to explore and really study this problem. One of the simple solutions

is for the Congress to go ahead and take that action. I certainly

have been one that is long convinced we ought to do this. None of

us want to do anything that would hinder or disrupt the fine system

that General Hershey has had, and still has, in the country today.

I wonder what your reaction to such a request of the subcommittee

or the committee would be?

Mr. MACY. My reaction would be very favorable. I would be

pleased to collaborate with General Hershey to make a review and see

if there is some middle ground in what exists at the present time and

the Classification Act which might provide a more systematic manner

of setting the rates of pay, without jeopardizing the independence

of the system. I think the independence of the system is very

important in responding to the special need of the system.

I believe all of us feel that the most effective test of whether or not

an organization is functioning is the results that it has achieved. And

it would seem to me that none of us would want to produce any new

requirement that would jeopardize the effective results that have

been achieved.

Mr. HENDERSON. Going back to the point that we have made here

with regard to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley,

and these Federal agencies that do have a different pay system—or do

not use the classified schedules for their employees. In those cases

you will find that most of their employees are working separate and

apart from the community. General Hershey made the point that

these employees are working in the community. In theory we have

been trying to give pay comparable to the community, but I do not

believe we have given proper recognition to the problem that in these

communities they are working with other Federal employees. We

have to tell them they are Federal employees for everything except

pay. It is very difficult for us to say their pay rates should not be

some way related to that of other Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the record—and I hope maybe

some benefit to the committee—I am sure that you know that I have

been interested in this problem for 4 or 5 years. Every time we have

had a pay act I have tried to get the explanation that we had this

morning. Even in the light of that long delay, from my viewpoint,

I would be very happy if we could have, under the direction of the

subcommittee, a real study. I think that Chairman Macy and the
22 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

Commissioners and their staffs would be very helpful to General Hershey and the people in the Selective Service System, in making a

detailed study and reporting back to Congress—even by the 1st of January of next year—so we would have time to act. These em- ployees, and perhaps the employee organizations, would be happy to report to the employees that you folks are taking the top-level look at it. I am sort of torn this morning as to whether to press the point to bring them under the Classification Act, or to give you an oppor- tunity to make a study and see what the situation is. To be very frank, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Director, I don't believe you recognize the problem of the local employees as some of the Members of the Congress recognize it.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Du',sm. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. We will take that under advisement when the subcommittee meets.

If there are no further questions, thank you, very much. The next witness is Mr. Thomas G. Walters, legislative representa- tive of American Federation of Government Employees.

You are welcomed this morning, Mr. Walters.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. WALTERS, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. First of all I would like to address myself briefly to the subject of the pending bill that is before the committee.

We of the American Federation of Government Employees whole- heartedly subscribe to the intent of this legislation. We also subscribe to the suggestions just made by Congressman Henderson from North Carolina that a long-range study be made of this program. And as a

former chairman of a local county draft board, I cannot help but take

some exceptions to the approach made by General Hershey and Chairman Macy.

Personally, I feel that we are in the process of breaking down the merit system rather than improving it. Because these employees, for everything other than salaries, come under the Classification Act, and other acts of Congress, as I understand it. And I know from experience that adjoining counties—and of course, this has been some

years ago, since I served as chairman of the draft board—but at that time adjoining counties could be paying different salaries with the general population and the general economy of the counties being about the same.

I happened to be chairman of the draft board of Stephens County, Ga. And we had counties adjoining that were similar in all respects,

or most all respects. But there was a difference in the pay for the local employees of the draft boards, which caused some dissatisfaction and, unrest at that time.

I have never felt that—and our organization feels this way—that the setting of these salaries should be left in the hands of any individ- uals when we are all striving to improve the merit system. And I

am persuaded to believe that these people, more than some other

groups that are listed by Chairman Macy, should come under the Classification Act, because every county, so far as I know, no matter how small or how large, will have at least one draft board set up, and
COMPENSATION FOR '',1•:1-ECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 23

generally in the courthouse. And those employees have lunch, and

they work with the people in the other agencies Of the Federal Government. And some of the draft boards are located in post office buildings. And I think there is no real, honest justification for these people

to be held out, and generally speaking their salaries are lower than

those fixed by Congress. I think you will find that to be true. It

was true when I was chairman of the draft board.

So I am strongly in favor of this legislation. And the members

that we have from the employees of the draft boards are very unhappy,

from the information that comes to us through meetings and letters

and resolutions, they are very unhappy that some man in Atlanta, for

example, will have full say, so they think, as to whether or not they

get a salary increase. If they happen so have a liberal State director,

why he can intercede perhaps and get them money easier than a man

who might he quite conservative and does not feel that they ought to

have any additional money.

So I think it is for the best interest of everyone concerned, including

the employees, the public, and the Federal Service, and the merit

system, that Congress put these people under the Classification Act.

And I think that we need very much to take a long look and to set

the standards of the pay—and at the time I was connected with them,

the standards for the selective service employees were much lower than

those for the other classification employees, and I am persuaded from

some figures that I heard here this morning that they are still under

the average pay.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, it is the position of the American

Federation of Government Employees that we hope you will approve

this bill immediately, and then for the future that we take a look, a

long look, at the reclassification of these employees. And if there is

anything we can do with our staff down at the AFGE, we will be most

happy to cooperate.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Du',sm. Mr. Walters, are many members of these draft

boards members of your unit?

Mr. WALTERS. A good many members are employees. And they

are increasing every year. We have more members today than we

had last year, and more members last year and the year before.

And I think it is largely because of unrest that is developing among

the employees on this pay question.

Mr. Du',sm. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no questions. Thank you.

Mr. Du',sic'. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I would just like to say that I

appreciate your statement here, Mr. Walters. I agree with you 100

percent.

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Du',sm. Mr. Matsunaga?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Walters, how many of the 7,500 employees

belonging to your organization will be affected by the bill?

Mr. WALTERS. I have no way of knowing, because in most places

the members joined in with the lodge of the community. And we do

not keep any breakdown of records of lodges that are set up to cover

different agencies. So it would be next to impossible to know.

I know that the membership is increasing. I don't know whether

we have got 20 percent of them or 30 percent of them. I just don't
24 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

know. And I don't know how we could find out without lots of

trouble. But I know from our resolutions and our correspondence

and meetings throughout the country that the desire is increasing

year by year that their salaries be set by the Congress.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Have you had any indication from any of the

employees of the Selective Service System themselves that they are

dissatisfied with being omitted from the general pay act?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes. At meetings which they have around over

the country—and our executive vice presidents attend many of

these meetings—and I have had them to talk to me at meetings—of

course, as you perhaps know, I have only been with the AFGE this

time since January 1 of this year, but I have attended several meetings

throughout the country, in Tennessee and New York and New Jersey

and some other States, and at each meeting there has been one or

more employees of the selective service that has discussed this

problem with me.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. You have heard the testimony of General Hershey

and Mr. Macy that the policy is to equate the salaries of the selective

service employees with those prevailing locally. Is it your testimony

here that generally the salaries of the selective service employees

are lower than those prevailing locally?

Mr. WALTERS. First of all, I didn't get quite that impression from

their testimony—maybe I was wrong—that they made any concentrated effort to see that their salaries were comparable to folks who

worked for the county: agricultural committee or for commerce or

other agencies situated in that community. But I am of the opinion—

and I know it was when I was chairman of the draft board 

Mr. MATSUNAGA. How long ago was that?

Mr. WALTERS. Well, that has been 20 years ago. So that is the

reason I am emphasizing that when I was chairman of the draft board.

And I doubt seriously if percentagewise it has changed too much.

They were lower then than other Federal employees under the Classification Act.

MATSUNAGA. You do not know what the present situation is?

Mr. WALTERS. Well, from the averages that were given here today

of $4,200 and $5,100, I would say it is still lower. Because the average for other employees is higher than that figure that I heard

kicked around here this morning, at least that is my memory. So I

would think that it is still lower than the general average of the Classification Act.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Walters.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DULSKI. Thank you.

The last witness is Mr. Nathan Wolkomir, president of the National

Federation of Federal Employees.

STATEMENT OF NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY

HAROLD E. FINNEGAN, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. WOLKOMIR. My name is Nathan T. Wolkomir. I am president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. We have

members in virtually all departments and agencies worldwide as

well as selective service boards throughout the country.
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE, SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 25

I wish to express the appreciation of our orgnaization to the chairman and members of this subcommittee for their sympathetic and

understanding interest in the vitally important subject of compensation as it affects Federal employees, the Federal Service, and, in a

larger sense, the public served by these employees.

Mr. Chairman, the NFFE is in favor of the clerks in local and appeal

boards within the Selective Service System receiving more compensation. But I cannot agree that the 2.9 percent proposed by H.R.

14357 is a fair solution.

According to the 1965 annual report of the Selective Service System,

there are 4,061 local boards and 95 appeal boards with a total of 4,688

full-time and 1,801 part-time compensated employees. These employees perform the supportive work for the approximately 33,000

uncompensated members, advisors to registrants, and medical advisors to the local and appeal boards. On the average, then, each

full-time compensated employee performs supportive work for approximately eight uncompensated employees.

This means, as the general has testified here today, they are office

managers, responsible for the multitudinous details iequired to carry

out the mission of Selective Service quickly and above all accurately.

Again, referring to the 1965 annual report of the Selective Service

System, Director Hershey writes (page 40) of local board clerks:

These persons as the sole compensated representatives of the Selective Service System at the community level, need maturity, dedication, a sense of public

relations as well as the ability to do a good job in the usual sense.

With that I am in complete agreement. But I cannot agree that

the approximately $3,600 to $3,800 I estimate they receive is a fair

wage for such responsibilities, nor do I think the $100 to $125 H.R.

14357 proposes to add is sufficient to make their salaries just. This

is $2-plus per week. Less than a bricklayer or plumber makes in a

half hour.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to a number of case

studies from selective service employees that speak more eloquently

than can I of the injustice that is being perpetrated on these loyal

and conscientious employees.

I think it is time we recognized these individuals on the same level

as other Government employees and put their jobs under the Classification Act and pay them what their duties and responsibilities are

worth in relation to other Federal employees in the community.

With respect to the allegation that the work of Selective Service

requires clerks who are community conscious I ask in what substantive way does the work of the local board clerks differ communitywise from the work of the employees of the Social Security Administration, public, or DOD agencies? I think the work of one requires

just as much community spirit as the other and I think they should

be paid under the same system. Further, putting these positions

under the Classification Act would eliminate the need for special bills,

such as H.R. 14357 and the continued extension of patchwork

pay systems, arbitrarily determined. Wage board employees have

annual surveys, classified employees have a pay schedule. Selective

service employees have bosses.

The Selective Service System has been in continuous operation for

a long period of years. There is every indication that, the state of
26 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

the world being what it is, the System will continue to play a vital

role in our national life for decades to come.

For this reason it is all the more imperative to take action which

will not only assure a fair and equitable rate of compensation for

selective service employees but also will place the administration of

their pay and conditions of employment within the purview of the

Classification Act. There may have been some reasonable justification for the essentially makeshift, patchwork, and abnormal administrative method when the System was originally and hastily established; certainly there can be no sound justification for its continuance

under those conditions now and the years to come. Indeed, remedial

action is indicated not only in justice to the employees but very much

in the interest of the Government, which has a vital stake in the sustained and efficient performance of the System for the foreseeable

future.

We submit, Mr. Chairman, that intrenched and persistent opposition to the action which we are here proposing, action which has the

merit of being based on the soundest of principles and is so demonstrably in the national interest, should not be permitted to stand in the

way of its approval by the Congress. This action already has been

much too long delayed.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Federation of Federal

Employees I again wish to express our thanks and appreciation for

the interest shown by the members of this subcommittee on this very

important issue, and for your action in scheduling these hearings

early in the session. I would like to call your attention to the enclosures which are letters from selective service employees whom I

think actually would stand 180 degrees from, some of the testimony

that you heard earlier today in spite of the happy family consent.

It is our earnest hope that the subcommittee will, as a result, be

able to report a bill shortly classifying selective service employees,

and that it can receive prompt and favorable action.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

MT. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR,

President, NFFE, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR: Enclosed for your information is General Hershey's

annual report to the U.S. Congress. I would like you to read pages 8, 38, 39,

40, and 42 of this report. In his report, as always, he gives the impression that

the majority of work is done by the uncompensated board members. On page

8 he gives the staff total of the local boards. What he does not state is that a

board member works on the average of 4 hours per month, or 48 hours per year,

while the compensated employee works an average of 40 hours per week plus

noncompensated time. The compensated employee thus works an average of

2,080 or more hours per year. To give you an even clearer picture, there are

16,372 uncompensated board members in all, working an average of 48 hours

per year, per person, for a total of 785,856 hours. On the other hand there are

4,657 full-time compensated employees averaging 2,080 hours per year, per

person, for a total of 9,686,560 hours. There are 1,796 part-time employees,

many of whom are WAE employees who are only allowed to work 900 hours per

year, per person. General Hershey's statement that over 85 percent of the

48,300 members are uncompensated tends to give Congress the impression that these people work side by side with the compensated employee 40 hours a week.

This is simply not true and if a proper investigation were made the facts would bear out my statement.

To illustrate further, there are approximately 118 appeal boards with 4,170

appeal agents handling 9,741 appeal cases for the year 1965. This amounts to approximately 3% appeal agents per appeal board handling approximately 83 appeal cases per year. Anyone with commonsense would realize that the appeal
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 27

agents- would not have to work a full 40 hours per week to handle this meager

number of appeals.

I am not a statistician but I do have enough sense to figure that General

'Hershey's: repert does not bear him out When he States, as does the Civil Service

Commission (see enclosed letter) that this work is a community effort by the

majority of uncompensated personnel.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

BUREAU OT,POLICIES AND STANDARDS,

WasAington, D.C., March 18, 1966.

DEAR MRS. SCOTT: Your letter of February 17, 1966, to the President about

salaries of selective service board clerks has been forwarded to this office for

reply.

Since the beginning of the Selective Service System in the early 1940's positions

of tile clerks in local and appeal boards have been excepted by law from the

,nationwide statutory schedules of the Classification Act. Since there is no law

spebifyint how the rates for employees in these positions must be determined,

the Director of Selective Service, within the lithits of his 'Appropriations, may

fix and adjust their pay by the method he finds best suited, to the needs of the

organization.

Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of having each local board

team of unpaid members, their unpaid advisers and the compensated clerks

fully identified Ntith the community served. Officials of the Selective Service

System have consistently expressed the view that one of the most important

ways in which this identification has been attained is by compensating local

board clerks in accordance with community standards rather than standards

established for Federal employees generally. The Administration has supported

the position of the Director of the Selective Service System in opposing legislation

to bring the positions of these clerks under the Classification Act.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD H. LEICH,

Chief, Policy ,Development Division.

JANUARY 26, 1966.

DEAR NFFE: I am so happy to know that you are interested in the welfare

of local board clerks.

Of all Federal employees, we are the only ones that go to work before daylight

for the purpose of forwarding young men for induction into the Armed Forces. I

usually leave the bus station in tears after witnessing the farewells to loved ones.

There is always the possibility that some crank will take a shot at you.

I have been a local board clerk for over 13 years and my take home pay at this

time is more than it has ever been—$126.56 every 2 weeks. I am paying on my

home and my car is over 9 years old.

Sure hope you can help us and if it could be made retroactive it would be

wonderful. (Even if it meant dipping into the antipoverty funds.)

Mr. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Thank you for your letter "1966, The Selective Service Year," and

its enclosed information.

I am enclosing a half year's dues ($7) and application for membership. I am

glad that finally someone is interested in helping local board clerks. I have been

with Selective Service for 5/12 years, having moved to this town because of my

husband's health and work. I was a classified, career employee, GS-4, step 5

(clerk-stenographer). I started here at a salary lower than the beginning salary

of a GS-1. After 5% years I have had only one raise (because of an increase in

registrants) that was not to be an act of Congress. My salary now is the sane as

the third step of a OS-1. And this is the most responsible job I have ever had,

because it involves the lives of young men. I am the one and only compensated

member in this board. Thus I am delegated with the authority of managing the

local board office and all the work.
28 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

The thing that makes us feel more discriminated against is the fact that clerical

employees in all State headquarters are classified. The workloads imposed upon

us now are terrific.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help in this drive to get us classified.

Mr. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR7

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR: Thank you for your recent letter, and the interesting information enclosed.

Obviously, I couldn't agree more emphatically with the aims of NFFE, its opinions as expressed in your third paragraph, nor support more heartedly, the

goals anent SSS, as you have outlined them.

Consequently, I would indeed be most happy to join. However, the moot

question—being—on what? Money? In your letter you indicated the attitude

of the officials toward the clerical personnel and their wages—which leaves no

allocation of funds for extracurricular investments.

Even though we are required to pass a pedestrian GS-2 test, we remain ungraded, and regardless of excellent ratings—or any individual efforts to do the

best possible job, over and beyond the requirements in the Clerk's Manual, we continue ungraded. Unfortunately the excellent rating is nonedible.

It is my opinion that to efficiently fulfill the duties of a local board clerk, it is

helpful to be part lawyer, diplomat, guidance counselor, substitute parent,

recruiter, and some public relations ability is also useful. These qualities in

addition to "the paperwork" are essential.

My plans, since last May, have been to leave the service, as soon as a few

personal problems have been resolved. As an SSS clerk, I have no alternative,

despite my efforts to supplement my income by selling real estate on Saturday,

Sundays, and using my annual leave when I have a prospective buyer.

One of my three children has just received his degree in veterinary medicine

from the University of Pennsylvania, my daughter is a senior at the College of

William and Mary, and is now applying to medical schools, my younger son is a

sophomore at William and Mary, majoring in physics. It is my intention that

their education be completed.

No doubt I shall continue in Government service, having passed the "5-year"

mark this month. My final decision as to agency and location may rest upon

Cathy's acceptance into medical school. When everything is settled, I shall, if

I may, complete my application and return it, as I believe membership in the

NFFE would be beneficial in any agency of the Government in which I may

finally be accepted. My preferences are rather simple: a position offering a

challenge and a full schedule of work.

I apologize for consuming so much of your time, and offering so little in support,

and I offer my best wishes for a total success for the personnel who elect to remain

with SSS.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIRS: Please send an application for membership for your union.

Until January 1965 my annual salary barely exceeded $2,000 as a local board

clerk with the Selective Service system.

Who can I write to or what can I do concerning S. 705 by Senator Daniel

Brewster, of Maryland; H.R. 2195, by Congressman 0. C. Fisher, of Texas; and

H.R. 6978, by Congressman Clarence Long, of Maryland?

JANUARY 25, 1966.

FEBRUARY 2, 1966.

DEAR SIR: I know how wonderful NFFE is, but, sir, some selective service

personnel are so poorly paid, that they can't afford the $14 fee. Yet we must get

all work out exact and on schedule. I belonged to NFFE 20 years ago, when I

was in civil service before marriage. After being left a widow I went back, was

assigned to SSS and regret if fully. Have years of exp-,:ience, pass-.1 recent
COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES 29

current examination for GS-3, but get the salary for beginner GS-1. Have been

with SSS 34 years, no raises, within grade, or otherwise. Why does Hershey

permit this? It is a cheapskate agency.

I had my civil service rating before I went to work for selective service. I have

never had an in-grade raise the full 6 years I have been there nor a raise in rating.

If possible I would like a wallet-size card of GS ratings and wages.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Du',sm. Thank you very much.

Mr. Matsunaga?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you have made a wonderful case for the employees whom you

represent, Mr. Wolkomir.

I have no questions.

Mr. Duism. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. I was just wondering whether any particular

employee representing these selective service clerks planned to testify.

You have not had a request from any individual, have you?

Mr. DuLsici. No; they have no objection.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. I am sorry, they do have an objection. The unions

are representative of them. We had a group from Baltimore that did

want to come down, but realizing the shortness of your hearing for 1

day we advocated against their coming and asked them to submit

their written statements by way of letters in lieu of their appearance.

Mr. JOHNSON. Just for my own clarification, there are two Government employee unions that have talked here this morning. There is

the AFGE, and you are in the NFFE?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you cover the same employees?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. The AFGE is affiliated with the AFL—CIO, and

the National Federation of Federal Employees is an independent

union.

Mr. JOHNSON. You represented the independent group?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. You are with the NFFE. Are you an independent

group?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. The oldest independent general union in government. We have been in government for a little over 50 years.

Mr. JOHNSON. For the purpose of bargaining with various Federal

agencies do you do the bargaining, or does the AFGE do it?

Mr.

agencies, 

We have no connection whatsoever with the

AFL—CIO. We do our own bargaining.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do they bargain also?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Yes.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. You are saying that the two organizations

represent the same single employee?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. No, sir. We both have members in the same

agencies in government, not the same members.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. A member may belong either to your organization or to the AFFE?
30 COMPENSATION FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES

Mr. WOLKOMIR. I will stand corrected, sir. Often they belong

to both. This is not generally true, but there are members that

belong to both organizations.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I didn't quite understand how many of the

selective service employees your organization represents.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. As we stand today, and considering our count,

which does not quite come to 8,000, we run approximately 10 percent

of the total of the selective service clerks. And it so happens in the

last 2 months we have had a concerted drive strictly in this area.

Month by month this figure changes and it is growing by leaps and

bounds.

Mr. MATSUNA GA. Thank you very much.

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wolkomir, welcome to the committee. I think you have

made a very pointed statement here, and it is very valuable to our

committee.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Thank you very much.

Mr. DuLsici. If there are no further questions, the subcommittee

stands adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon. at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject

to the call of the Chair.)

0
w I