GOVERNMENT

.1Z) Elb °IS

Storage 9. 4)0'4

PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL

/ 4 EMPLOYEES AT POSTAL INSTALLATIONS

. P %bp 

P 22-

ru BEFORE THE

HEARING

=

-

- OF THE

r9

COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MMITTEE ON POSTAL FACILITIES

AND MODERNIZATION

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 5942

A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE

PARKING SPACE FOR THE AUTOMOBILES OF PATRONS AND

POSTAL EMPLOYEES AT POSTAL INSTALLATIONS

AUGUST 25, 1965

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

•

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

52-979 WASHINGTON : 1965

tortkite.04

8

414N 66
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY,

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West Virginia

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

PAUL J. KREBS, New Jersey

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

Tennessee, Chairman

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTFI, Kansas

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director

JOHN H. MART1NY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL FACILITIES AND MODERNIZATION"

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

PAUL J. KREBS, New Jersey

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

EDWARD J. DERW/NSKI, Illinois

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

Ex Officio Voting Members

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee ROBERT I. coRawrir, Pennsylvania

•
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Coffman, Amos J., Deputy Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau of

Facilities, Post Office Department; accompanied by A. C. Hahn,

Deputy Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau of Operations; and

William F. Lawrence, Associate General Counsel, Office of the Page

General Counsel 2

Gibson, Everett G., president, National Federation of Post Office

Motor Vehicle Employees, AFL—CIO 29

Goodman, Sidney A., president, National Postal Union, accompanieC

by David Silvergleid, secretary National Postal Union 24

Jaspan, Dan, legislative representative, National Association of Postal

Supervisors 22

Mc Avoy, Harold, national president, Post Office Mail Handlers,

Watchmen, Messengers dr Group Leaders 31

McCart, John A., operations director, Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO 26

Messer, Ross A., legislative representative, National Association of

Post Office & General Services Maintenance Employees 28

Nilan, Patrick, legislative director, United Federation of Postal Clerks_ 9

Rademacher, James, vice president, National Association of Letter

Carriers 18
6
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL

EMPLOYEES AT POSTAL INSTALLATIONS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL FACILITIES AND

MODERNIZATION 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. Arnold Olsen of Montana

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. OLSEN. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning the Subcommittee on Postal Facilities and Moderization will hold hearings on H.R. 5942, a bill I introduced to provide

parking spaces for the automobiles of patrons and postal employees

at postal installations. Somebody made a joke about it this morning

and said, "Olsen is in space again—parking space, that is."

(H.R. 5942 follows:)

[H.R. 5942, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide parking space for the automobiles of patrons and

postal employees at postal installations

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

America in Congress assembled, That chapter 7 of title 39, United States Code, is

amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"§ 713. Parking facilities at post offices

"(a) The Postmaster General shall provide adequate off the street automobile

parking facilities for patrons of the postal service, and for postal field service

employees, within a radius of two ordinary city blocks at each post office, post

office annex, or other postal installation which requires a force of two hundred

or more postal field service employees. Any contract for the construction,

erection, purchase, or lease of any post office, post office annex, or other postal

installation, which will require a force of two hundred or more postal field service

employees, shall include provision for adequate off the street automobile parking

facilities for patrons of the postal service and for postal field service employees.

"(b) As used in this section, the term 'adequate' means one automobile parking

space for each two and five-tenths postal field service employees."

SEC. 2. The table of contents of chapter 7 of title 39, United States Code, is

amended by adding

"713. Parking facilities at post offices."

immediately below

"712. Armed Forces postal clerks.".

Mr. OLSEN. No post office can operate as a public service if the

public is unable, because of inadequate parking space, to use the

services offered. Nor does the post office meet its obligations as an

employer unless it provides parking facilities for all employees. Many

post offices in downtown areas are simply inaccessible when there is

no convenient place to park an automboile for a few minutes while

1
2 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

the owner mails a package. Others become public nuisances when postal workers must park all day in spaces which should be reserved for shoppers. This problem can only worsen as the volume of mail and the number of postal employees increases.

The bill before us would guarantee that the post office meet its obligations, to the public and to postal workers, by requiring adequate

offstreet parking facilities at all major postal installations. The formula outlined in the bill is 1 parking space for each 2.5 employees within 2 blocks of any postal installation with a force of 200 or more

employees.

We would like to examine this formula today and explore all

aspects of a problem which must be solved in some way if the Post Office Department is to fulfill its function as a real public service.

I would like to cite one particular example I have in mind. In

my own hometown of Butte, Mont., we have a new post office facility

which is located in a new shopping center. In the beginning the

businessmen in the shopping center were pleased with the traffic

the post office brings. But gradually, because there is a need for

parking spaces for the businesses, there is arising some resentment

over the fact that post office employees and post office patrons are

using the parking spaces of the shopping center. The businessmen

don't like it. They are wondering why the Post Office Department

does not buy some nearby vacant land, put some black top on it,

and provide parking spaces for its employees and patrons.

We have this morning as witnesses from the Post Office Department,

Mr. Amos J. Coffman, Deputy Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau

of Facilities; Mr. A. C. Hahn, Deputy Assistant Postmaster General,

Bureau of Operations; and Mr. William F. Lawrence, Associate

General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel. We are very glad

to have you gentlemen here. We know you will present an authoritative point of .view. I believe you are also speaking for the Bureau

of the Budget. We are glad to have you with us and will be glad to

receive your views on this proposed legislation.

STATEMENT OF AMOS J. COFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF FACILITIES; ACCOMPANIED

BY A. C. HAHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL,

BUREAU OF OPERATIONS, AND WILLIAM F. LAWRENCE, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would

like to make a statement on this proposed legislation. Before doing

that I would like to introduce myself. I am Amos J. Coffman,

Deputy Assistant Postmaster General for the Bureau of Facilities.

To my left is Chris Hahn, the Deputy Assistant Postmaster General

for the Bureau of Operations, who carries the chief responsibility

for actually carrying and handling the mail; and to my right is William

F. Lawrence, our Associate General Counsel.

We do appreciate the chance to explore with you the ramifications

of the bill which you have introduced, H.R. 5942.

As you have indicated, the provisions of H.R. 5942 would make

it mandatory upon the Post Office Department to provide employee

and patron offstreet automobile parking facilities at every postal
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 3

installation employing a force of 200 or more postal field service

employees. This bill would require one parking space for each 2Y2

postal field service employees. The bill would be equally applicable

to all existing postal installations as well as all new contracts for lease

quarters meeting the criteria specified in the bill, that is, having more

than 200 field service employees.

The policy of the Post Office Department to provide parking space

is to allow one parking space for each four employees on duty at

the peak hour, not the total force but those on duty at the peak hour,

plus an additional 20 percent for tour overlap, so that we can get our

people in and out and enable more than one person to use one parking

space, because we have various tours. H.R. 5942 is, of course, considerably more liberal than the current policy of the Post Office

Department in determining parking requirenients. The 1-for-4 ratio

is a general rule. I want to emphasize that the 1-for-4 ratio now

followed by the Post Office Department is a general rule. It is not

a hard-and-fast rule, principally because the availability of public

transportation at all hours when needed is not always there. We

provide for more or less parking spaces depending upon local conditions or circumstances at the postal facility. For example, at airmail

facilities, we generally provide for more parking spaces than the 1-for4 ratio principally because of the unavailability of public transportation to airports during all tour hours.

I want to illustrate further the flexibility of the guideline we are

now following, primarily because we think this is a problem for each

installation and is hard to handle on a nationwide hard-and-fast rule.

Let me point out what is happening in our new facilities now under

construction or planning.

In Los Angeles, Calif. we have a large facility in the planning

stage to handle airmail. It is an airmail facility. We have provided

571 parking spaces at that facility. The peak occupancy at that

facility in terms of employees is 1,270 at one time. The total employees at that facility will be 2,612. Therefore, the ratio of parking

spaces to people on duty at peak time is 2.2; that is, 1 parking space

for each 2.2 people on duty at one time in Los Angeles.

Even more striking is the situation at San Jose where there are

240 parking spaces with peak occupancy of employees of 463. The

total employees at that facility is 580. The ratio is 1.9; that is, we

are providing 1 parking space for each 1.9 employees at San Jose.

The reason is it is an outlying area where we do not have available

public transportation and it is necessary to have that much parking

space to handle the mail.

At Columbia, S.C., we are providing 144 parking spaces. The

peak occupancy is 324 people. The total number of employees is

835, and the ratio is 2.3, the ratio based on peak occupancy.

At the Los Angeles, Calif., terminal annex downtown in Los Angeles

we provide 697 parking spaces. The peak occupancy is 2,615 employees. The total number of employees is 5,888. The ratio is 3.7.

This is a downtown operation where there is more public transportation

available and therefore the ratio is not as low.

Mr. OLSEN. Could I interrupt you there?

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. In a situation like the one at Los Angeles, I suppose

there is priority given to certain people for parking spaces?
4 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes; the night shift or people who have to be in and

out would have priority.

Mr. OLSEN. Some people in effect are required to use public

transportation?

Mr. COFFMAN. That is right.

Mr. OLSEN. And if their work requires an automobile, they have

priority in parking spaces?

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes.

Mr. HAHN. I do not think the employee would have to have official

need for his automobile in order to have a parking space.

Mr. OSLEN. He has to be important?

Mr. HAHN. We do have certain criteria. We give priority to

people who operate in car pools, as we do in Washington. We give

priority to people who live a distance away from the installation who

have problems with public transportation. Many people, of course,

do not want to drive their own automobiles and they use public transportation. Let me go ahead with a few other illustrations because

I think they are important in showing flexibility.

In Buffalo, N.Y., we do provide 366 parking spaces with a peak

occupancy of 1,250. The total number of employees is 2,600. The

ratio is 3.4.

At Lubbock, Tex., where there are wide-open spaces and they are

not so much needed, we provide 67 parking spaces. The peak

occupancy is 296, the total number of employees is 476, and the ratio

is 4.4, that is one parking space for every 4.4 employees.

At the new post office in downtown Milwaukee, where public

transportation is readily available to a substantial number of employees, we will provide 430 parking spaces. The peak occupancy is

1,332 employees. The total number of employees is 2,029. The ratio

based on peak occupancy is 3.1; that is, one parking space for every

3.1 employees in the downtown Milwaukee station.

I think that illustrates the policy of the Department is not an

arbitrary rule of 1 for 4, but it is an effort to adjust the number of

parking spaces we provide to the needs of the particular facility, based

on public transportation patterns, availability of public transportation,

and so forth.

The bill does not take into consideration that at postal installations

employing 200 or more postal employees, the scheduling of the employees for duty is in two or three shifts or tours, thus making the

parking space based on the total work force excessive.

Let me illustrate how that works. Let us assume a postal facility

employs 1,000 employees, and the employees are scheduled for duty

in three tours. Then let us assume that 333 employees work each

tour. H.R. 5942, which is based on the total work force, would

require approximately 400 parking spaces, whereas the Post Office

Department policy would provide for considerably less and would be

based on duty during the peak occupancy of the facility. We think

this is significant in applying a rule based on total employees.

There are approximately 275 post offices with complements of 200

or more postal field service employees, for a total of 344,000 such

employees. Under present policy, we are providing about 20,600

actual parking spaces for these 344,000 employees. Since the employees perform their tours at various times, this means we are providing parking spaces for approximately 68,800 employees under our
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 5

present policy. H.R. 5942 would require the Post Office Department

to obtain an additional 117,000 parking spaces. We believe it is significant to point out also that each additional parking space would

require a significant increase in maneuvering area. You cannot just

provide a space for the car. Naturally you have to provide some

footage to get in and out. On this basis, we estimate that each

parking space would cost us a minimum of about $45 annually, or

a total yearly cost increase for the Post Office Department of $5.3

million. I have said this is the minimum increase in cost, because

in computing this cost we considered it would cost us only 15 cents

a square foot to control and maintain a parking lot. This is absolutely a minimum figure, because in most areas it would cost us more

than 15 cents a square foot to even get the property, to lease it or

to rent it, on any annual basis you work it out. If you take 300,

which is the minimum square feet for each space, times 15 cents a

square foot, you get $45 a year.

We think it is reasonable to conclude that the $45 annual cost per

parking space would be greatly increased in such areas as New York

City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. If H.R. 5942 is enacted, we would

be required to provide these additional parking spaces within the

radius of two ordinary city blocks from the postal installation. To

locate parking facilities within the boundary called for by this legislation in cities such as those mentioned above would require the

Postmaster General to seek lease space on maximum improved land

in the highest cost areas.

Let me give you the worst illustration of that. In New York City

we are building a new facility, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt facility

on the Upper East Side near the United Nations area. We are

providing no parking space for employees at that facility because they

are taking the subway. They would not know how to get their car

there if they had a space. In order to provide parking spaces for the

employees at that facility under this proposed legislation, it would

mean we would have to go within two blocks in that ultraexpensive

area and get some land that would cost at least $5 per square foot.

The taxes alone are $1 per square foot in that part of Manhattan.

That illustrates the problem you run into in trying to handle the problem on a nationwide basis. That is probably the strongest illustration

I can give you.

Mr. OLSEN. Are you building a new building in New York City

without providing any parking facilities?

Mr. COFFMAN. We provide enough parking facilities for officials

who must have it for their business, for higher officials and trucks and

so on, but under the zoning requirements those are provided in the

building. We are not providing parking spaces in the normal sense.

Mr. OLSEN. Do the zoning requirements require parking spaces in

buildings?

Mr. COFFMAN. No. We do comply with local ordinances in all our

facilities but they do not require any. They feel the subway system

will provide adequate transportation.

Mr. OLSEN. We will suspend just for a moment at this point.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. OLSEN. Now we will get back on the record and back to our

witness.

52-079-65-2
6 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. COFFMAN. Let me discuss the patron parking features of the

bill that has been introduced.

Patron parking under Post Office Department policy is provided on

the basis of actual need as determined by the number of lockboxes

rented and the service counter transactions in the postal facility. We

do not believe it appropriate to apply the parking ratio provided in

this bill to both patron and employee parking, as there is likely to be

no relationship between the two. It is not clear whether H.R. 5942

would apply to postal facilities located in federally owned buildings.

Such postal facilities are all within the General Services Administration's areas of responsibility for planning and administration.

On the point of patron parking, as the chairman indicated in his

introductory remarks, it is necessary to have places where people can

stop and park and we try to provide that where needed. In some

instances we fall short. In a medium sized office if you have 10

spaces and you have 4 or 5 windows open and a group of lockboxes

of substantial quantity, we might feel that is adequate. That is the

way we attack it.

Do you want to comment on this further, Mr. Hahn?

Mr. HAHN. I do not think so.

Mr. COFFMAN. Additionally, this bill does not take into consideration local conditions which might well negate the need for supplying

vehicular parking. By that we mean sufficiency of curb parking

within the general area, or the availability of municipal parking lots.

This bill would require the Post Office Department to obtain the

additional parking spaces despite the fact that ample parking spaces

are otherwise available in the general area of the post office. We

think it is also significant to point out that in the large metropolitan

areas postal employees may well prefer to utilize the public transportation system. I think there are a few large areas where this is

true.

Finally, we think it appropriate to mention that the Post Office

Department complies with all local laws and ordinances in its lease

facilities, which comprise a very substantial number of our facilities,

in regard to parking spaces. In effect, this bill could be construed as

imposing the arm of Congress on a strictly local area of responsibility.

Moreover, municipalities may well be concerned that compliance to

this bill would affect the selection of sites for new post offices, and I

think this is rather an important problem. As we all know, many

municipalities are undergoing central city redevelopment programs

geared essentially to economic betterment. In many instances we plan

our new postal facility in keeping with the city's redevelopment program. We do this, if we can, consistent with the interests of the Department. However, oftentimes space is at a premium. To provide

for the additional parking space required by this bill, and to keep

within our strict budgetary requirements, might well mean that we

would be required to locate outside the central city area, where otherwise we could be within that area. This would be so notwithstanding

that the city would provide, as many cities do, for parking spaces at

nominal cost. This bill would command the Post Office Department

to provide additional parking spaces despite local conditions.

For the reasons outlined we feel required to oppose this legislation

at this time.

That concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman.
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 7

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffman.

Mr. Hanley.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The one question in

my mind has to do with present policy. This is not quite clear to me.

Many postal facilities which are located in urban areas I know do

not have parking facilities. Would you elaborate on your statement

relative to present policy? What is the present policy?

Mr. COFFMAN. Presently we follow a guideline which calls for

providing, in new facilities and where it is physically possible to

provide it, one parking space for each four employees plus such

patron parking as is needed considering the number of open windows

and lockboxes in the post office lobby. Obviously we cannot follow

that guideline in downtown stations where the,re is no opportunity

for any parking, where it is physically impossible to provide it, and

where most of the business is walk-in business, and where you have a

combination of walk-in business plus inability to provide any parking.

If we have an establishment where the main business is not walk-in

business and we have no parking facility at all and it is physically

possible to provide it, our present policy would call for us to provide

it.

Mr. HANLEY. Do you actually make an effort to acquire property,

for instance, in a metropolitan area where an old post office is located

for the employees alone as opposed to the patrons? Do you try to

acquire property for the purpose of providing parking spaces for the

employees?

Mr. COFFMAN. Within the guidelines I have stated, the availability of public transportation and so forth, we make an effort to

do so. We. have done that at Providence, R.I., which is a new

facility but we have acquired property there. But we do not try

to acquire property, as provided in this bill, for one parking space

for every 2.5 employees. We would relate the need to the number

of employees at a particular time and consider all the factors surrounding it and then if we came up with a need we would fulfill that

need if reasonably possible to do so.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. I have no further

questions.

Mr. OLSEN. In my hometown there are five banks and four of

them have drive-in facilities and parking facilities. The new post

office across the street from one of the banking facilities has no provision for parking. It seems we are turning business away from the

post office while the banks are inviting business.

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, we do have 60 parking spaces in

Butte, Mont.

Mr. OLSEN. I am talking about the downtown facility.

Mr. COFFMAN. That is a station.

Mr. OLSEN. Yes.

Mr. COFFMAN. That fits the situation I was talking to Congressman

Hanky about where there is walk-in business. But if we could provide patron parking and it is not otherwise available, we would

consider doing it.

Mr. OLSEN. There are a lot of places they could have selected

where there was parking.

Mr. COFFMAN. That comes to the matter of site selection.
8 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, the banks do that well about site selection and

driveins. By the way, that is another subject I wish you would

allude to. What are we doing about drive-in facilities?

Mr. COFFMAN. We have recently established self-service facilities

outside a station which could be served by machines and so on.

Mr. OLSEN. I am talking about drive-in facilities. Have we tried

that anywhere, with clerks at windows?

Mr. COFFMAN. I do not believe so.

Mr. HAHN. We have tried this idea of drive-in postal windows at

two places. One is at Providence. That facility was constructed

with drive-in facilities. We found a lack of interest on the part of

the public in using these facilities. We have tried it at another place;

I am sorry I cannot remember the name of the place, but I know there

was one other place. We just did not get a favorable response from

the public in the use of it. We are getting a very favorable response

in the use of these self-service facilities which Mr. Coffman referred to.

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. You are to be commended for that. I think

the self-service centers are working very well.

Any questions, Mr. Krebs?

Mr. KREBS. I have just a couple questions. I want to preface

them with a statement to our visitors from Syracuse.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. KREBS. I could not help but jot down the communities in

my congressional district and visualize the locations of the post

offices in those communities.

In Newark you have about 3,000 employees and back of the post

office you have room for maybe 15 trucks to back up to the loading

dock. Then you have parking spaces reserved for two judges and one

for myself. By the time you take care of the brass I do not think

there are more than 10 other parking spaces. The postmaster, of

course, has a reserved space, as he should have, but even the second

and third in command may not have parking spaces, and insofar as

the poor patrons are concerned you can ride around that block

where the Newark post office is located 15 times and there is no place

to park. There is such an abysmal lack of parking space in Newark

it is cheaper to drive to a suburb to mail a letter. At Irvington you

have the same thing. At Maplewood you have a new facility and

I think the parking spaces are adequate. At Milburn the parking

facilities are not adequate; at Livingston, my hometown, you cannot

even park on the street; at Roseland the facilities are not adequate

for parking; at Caldwell you can find a parking space; at Cedar

Grove, no parking; and at Essex Falls, a city of 11,000 people, no

parking.

Montclair not only has parking space problems but in order to get

the employees to work they had to lease a garage 2 miles away and

every morning when the workers report for work they pile in a truck

and are driven to an annex to do their day's work and at the end of

the day they are driven back to the garage. The building is so

antiquated the floor is warped like the witch's waves.

It seems to me, as bad as the problem is for the workers, it is infinitely worse for the patrons. I do not know whether the ratio of

2.5 to 1 or 4 to 1 is correct, but I do think we have a problem and we

ought to do some serious thinking about solving it.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We certainly do

not want to lecture you. We are happy to have you here to spell out
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 9

the policy of the Post Office Department. We would like you to

consider changing it.

Mr. COFFMAN. I think what Mr. Krebs is saying is that many of

the problems are built around antiquated facilities, and the answer is

to get rid of antiquated facilities and get new facilities. We simply

cannot provide parking facilities where it is an old Federal building

like in Newark where the mail traffic and automobile traffic has

increased 10 or 20 times since the building was built. The answer is

to try to build new facilities, and we are trying to do that.

Mr. KREBS. The post office at Montclair was built in 1926 when the

volume of mail was much smaller.

Mr. OLSEN. What I would like to see in the Post Office Department

is somebody as progressive as our Butte bankers. I think we ought

to take a lesson from the shopping centers of the 20th century and

invite business to the post offices instead of driving it away. We

would be delivering the packages of department stores across the

Nation if the post offices would invite the business.

I am also critical of my bill. There have to be some exceptions

to it. But I think there has to be a more progressive policy on parking

spaces than the current one of the Post Office Department, and I

would like to have some suggestions from the Post Office Department

on how progressive the policy should be. I think you should come

up with suggestions for new facilities and then go to the Appropriations Committee for the money.

But I am happy to have your testimony. It affects my point of

view a great deal, and I am sincerely appreciative of your being with

us this morning.

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members

of the committee.

Mr. KREBS. I join the chairman in his remarks.

Mr. OLSEN. Our next witness is Mr. Patrick Nilan, legislative

director of the United Federation of Postal Clerks. We are very

happy to have you with us this morning, Mr. Nilan.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK NILAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS

Mr. NILAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very

happy to be with you this morning, particularly following the Post

Office Department's presentation. I might say I had hoped the Post

Office Department in this case would support this legislation as our

organization does.

I hope you and your committee will be indulgent with me while I

speak on the subject of this legislation and state some of our views on

it, and then subsequently I would like to submit a detailed statement

for the consideration of the committee. I ask this because when we

did receive notice of your scheduling a meeting last week I contacted

our locals in marly post offices throughout the country that we feel

would be representative of the parking conditions, and I would like

to submit our findings for the record together with a complete statement. We have not had a complete response as yet but should have

it in a few days.
10 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, your detailed statement will be

inserted at this point in the record.

(The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK NILAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED

FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLEKS

I would like to say we hear a great deal about comparability, and we feel in the

area of parking facilities your bill would certainly take care of a large part of the

problem, if enacted. We feel the principle of comparability should apply in

that area. I say this because of the considerable increase in parking facilities

provided by major industries today. As a matter of fact, it is considered so

important that many union contracts are negotiated with this in mind. We are

getting information from the AFL—CIO that should substantiate that this is a

very important matter, and we hope to have this for the record when we submit

Our detailed statement.

Before I make a few remarks in my verbal testimony, I hope you will not object

if I comment briefly on the testimony of the Post Office Department. It reminds

me of the old cliche, "Do as I say and not as I do." We realize the Post Office

Department and the administration in recent years have been more sympathetic

than heretofore in providing parking facilities. However, I cannot help being

impressed when they say efforts are being made to improve the situation, because

the record does not substantiate that much is being accomplished in the way of

patron and employee parking facilities.

I was very pleased to know that the policy of the Post Office Department is to

provide one parking space for each four employees plus 20 percent for overlap.

Mr. OLSEN. Let me interject at this point in the record that they

do not always pursue that policy. I pointed out that there are no

parking facilities in my hometown post office keeping up with the

banks in providing parking facilities.

Mr. NILAN. I share that feeling, and we are impressed to know

that is the Post Office Department policy because to date this is the

first time we have heard such policy enunciated. As a matter of

fact, I suggest the committee, in considering that part of the Post

Office Department's testimony, refer to part 612.22 of Postal Regulations which outlines, to the best of my knowledge, the Post Office

Department's official policy on parking and it is completely contradictory to the policy outlined in the testimony this morning.

I do believe it is interesting to note—and certainly we are not

questioning the policy as indicated in the testimony, other than to

show there is a difference in the two.

Mr. OLSEN. Could you briefly state what that regulation is?

Mr. NILAN. I will be very happy to.

The present policy as enunciated in part 612.22 of Postal Regulations points out that parking spaces may be allotted to officials of the

Post Office Department and other Federal agencies in the buildings

who use their car on official business. This is after they provide

space for vehicles such as trucks handling mail.

It has been our experience that if there is parking space available

it is allotted to the top brass and the rank and file have very little

space. The regulation states after these requirements have been

satisfied the postmaster and other officials in charge may, at their

discretion, assign parking areas for employee vehicles. However, if

on Government property, sufficient space is available, it can be used

for parking purposes provided the cost is borne by the employees and

the General Services Administration's regional office approves and

the work is done in accordance with the specifications of that office.
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 11

Again it has been our experience—and I work on this very closely

with officials, particularly in St. Paul and Minneapolis—it has been

our experience it is almost impossible for employees to take advantage

of the regulation because of cost and because of difficulty in finding

available property, but this is the official policy to the best of my

knowledge, and I will be glad to include this regulation in the record

when we submit our detailed statement.

I was also very much impressed with the statement of the Post

Office Department's testimony where they set out their policy of

arranging for parking facilities and point out there may be two or

three shifts or tours in each post office, and they point out that would

be one space for each three employees under certain conditions.

Unfortunately, there are no three specific tours in post offices; each

overlaps the other, so it is impossible to turn a parking facility three

times a day. You are lucky if you turn it two times a day.

Mr. OLSEN. So at least two-thirds of the employees are in need of

parking spaces?

Mr. NILAN. That is correct. There are three 8-hour tours and

each tour actually runs 8A 3 hours with the lunch period. The tours

have starting hours at practically every hour on the hour which

increases the problem of assigning such parking spaces as may be

available.

So I suggest the formula here is very attractive but in practice it

leaves much to be desired.

I do not care to take up more of the committee's time on the testimony of the previous witnesses, but one thing I would like to point

out is that while many communities are undergoing redevelopment,

again in this area it has been our experience that the parking property

that is being developed unfortunately is made available to commercial

parking lot operators and the prices they charge can run from $1.50

to $2.50 a day and, again, it is impossible for us to compete with commercial parking lot operators in order to provide parking spaces for

our people. We have tried this where possible but we are not in a

position to be competitive.

The post office parking problem, as we have pointed out, is Et

24-hour-a-day problem. Because of the reduced public transportation in most of the large communities in the country—when I say

"reduced" I mean from midnight to 6 o'clock in the morning when 50

percent of our people are involved in night work—and because of the

difficulty of using public transportation, it has been impossible for our

employees to avail themselves of this type of transportation, and as

a result they have had to increase the use of automobile transportation

rather than decrease it. Also, in many of the large cities the police

department is not too cooperative in permitting all-night parking on the

street. They allow 2-hour parking on the street, so the on-street

parking that might be available to our people is not available in

practice.

We have the additional problem of not only our male but female

employees where post offices are located in areas that are not the

newer sections, and they have the problem of walking two or three or

four blocks at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning in order to reach their

automobile, and it does create a problem for some of our employees

because of the locality in which post offices are located today.
12 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

We agree with the Post Office Department that more consideration

should be given to moving some of the major postal installations out

of the heavily populated downtown cities of the country, and perhaps

move them where they can secure adequate space for parking for

patrons as well as all other interested people. As I recall, the installation at Providence, R.I., which was a new installation—I was

there a few weeks back—it is my understanding the location of that

facility has reduced considerably the patron use of that facility, and

as a result the patrons do not have too great a problem because it is

removed from the downtown area.

I would like to briefly refer to the situation in my home city of

Minneapolis, where I had quite a fight to get adequate parking spaces

for our people. Today we have approximately 2,000 postal employees

that work in the main post office during one 24-hour period, and even

after a battle of 20 years we ended up with a lot that will take care

of about 120 cars on each tour or 240 out of 2,000 people. Again,

since this area is being redeveloped there was an opportunity to purchase adequate property for patron as well as employee parking but,

unfortunately, the Post Office Department was unable to acquire the

property so we still do not have parking facilities there. Most of our

people have to walk from four to six blocks. And many of them have

to cross the Mississippi River over the bridge and certainly during

our 30° and 35° weather during the winter months it creates considerable problems. At any rate, the parking facilities are inadequate.

In private industry I do not think anybody would argue the point.

As new businesses go up, by and large private industry does provide

parking facilities for both the people they are doing business with

as well as their employees. And that, again, is very helpful in recruiting employees and holding them, to provide them with this

very important fringe benefit.

It is interesting to note also that many progressive communities

when they are developing areas make a requirement that apartment

buildings, high rise apartments, new business firms and buildings

must provide a certain amount of off-street parking. It is unusual

to note, however, that in our experience when a new post office or

Federal building goes up, that this same requirement is not applied

equally to Government as it is to private industry.

The public patron parking, and we share the concern of the chairman

and other members of the subcommittee about this, I would like to

point out that this problem has not decreased. Rather it is on the

increase.

Top level decisions by the Post Office Department to substantially

reduce window service by using fewer employees on windows, requires

many patrons to spend anywhere from 15 minutes to a half hour in

a post office now to get service where formerly when our people

were permitted to provide the type of service we feel is essential,

they could park, even double park, and come in for 5 minutes and

take care of their business and get out again. Unfortunately this is

not true any longer.

• I am sure those of us who have been in post offices every day can

see not one or two patrons standing by a window but dozens. We

in the organization have been told by postal officials that you see

them standing in bank lobbies, see them lined up in supermarkets,

so certainly there is no objection to postal patrons standing up at
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 13

windows. I submit when a patron goes back and finds a parking

ticket for double parking 25 minutes in a 10-minute zone, he is not

enthused about this Department policy.

We do suggest again that it is a problem both for patrons and

employees as you point out in your bill. As far as our postal clerks,

we have seen many instances where our people, particularly senior

employees, rather than bucking the continual problem of trying to

find a parking place or walk five or six blocks to a post office from a

place that is available, that they will bid off a senior preferred assignment at the main office and move out to a suburban station with

the main idea in mind of having parking space closer to the place

where they work. Particularly in a II'nfl'S declining years, particularly in a severe winter in the North and the extremely warm weather

in the South, as a man gets along in years he thinks mole of this

question in his work than he does in some of the other preferred

assignments that he might be interested in.

Certainly the Members of Congress are well aware of the fact that

postal employees and patrons are not satisfied with the existing

policies of the Department as far as providing space.

I know many of you have received correspondence from letter

carriers, postal clerks, patrons, raising the roof because of inadequate

parking. Certainly we do not feel that this is a problem that the

Members of Congress should constantly and consistently be plagued

with. We do feel it is a question that should be resolved.

I was very much impressed by the statement of the Chair that the

Post Office Department should bring a progressive or realistic policy

to the attention of Congress and request funds to put this policy into

practice. I am confident that the Congress in its wisdom would be

sympathetic in this area.

Again it gets back to my opening statement, that it is in our opinion

at least a question or policy of doing as I say and not as I do. While

we were hopeful that the Post Office Department would support your

bills, support the bill introduced, H.R. 5942, it might take a progressive stand, might make recommendations which would be helpful to

the committee and in coming up with a formula why apparently this

is not the position of the postal administration.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to suggest for the

attention of yourself and the members of the committee, at least one

recommended change or amendment to the bill when you consider it

in executive session.

We would like to suggest that the present formula that is proposed,

based on 200 or more postal field service employees might more

realistically be changed to 25. We say this because when you get

into post offices of 25, 50, and 75 employees, the post office under

these conditions is normally also located in a downtown business

area. The problem is there just as acutely in some of the smaller

post offices as it is particularly peculiar to the larger post offices.

We would suggest that consideration be given to this change. We

certainly feel that the formula which has been suggested in the legislation of one employee parking space for each 2X employees as a

formula is realistic.

We do feel that with this type of a formula, and even with the

different tours and hours of employment, that our people could live

with this. We do feel also that consideration should be and must
14 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

be given to patron parking. Our people very frequently on the

windows say that one of the most irate complaints is from the patron

who must drive around the post office for 15 to 20 minutes or a

half hour trying to get into the post office to do business.

Unfortunately it is not postal management that gets this. It is

the first clerk that they meet at the window who must explain to

them and try to placate them and try to be cooperative. Then you

get to a lot of other questions. So I do submit the question of patron

parking is very important also.

We are confident in the considerations of this committee that

legislation will result which will be helpful to both the employee and

to the the patron.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present these

statements orally. As I mentioned, we will present a very detailed

statement which will provide you with some specific examples of

what we consider inadequate parking throughout the country and we

will do this for the record.

In closing I cannot help but recall the statements by the previous

witnesses. He cited Milwaukee, Wis., I believe. I am sure that

Congressmen Reuss and Zablocki would not necessarily agree. I am

not trying to speak for them. But I do know that starting in 1959,

our local 3 in Milwaukee has waged a continuing campaign to try to

make certain that somewhere near adequate parking space would be

available to the employees at the main Milwaukee post office. Both

Congressmen were most cooperative in the correspondence and in

personal contacts our people served on a community committee down

there in an effort to protect our people.

The Post Office Department—and I say this without fear of contradiction because I have the files back in the office—did not appear

overly concerned or disturbed about the need for parking spaces.

It is true that they have ended up with something over 400 spaces for

employees. I suggest that the figure of approximately 2,200 employees

in the Milwaukee main office would be a realistic figure and would

certainly be in excess of 1 space for 5 at a minimum.

We also would challenge there is adequate public parking space

because we understand that this was a continuing problem down there

not only for the employees but also for municipal parking purposes.

I have been advised by our officers and members in Milwaukee that

as of right today they are thoroughly dissatisfied with the parking

arrangements made for the new Milwaukee post office; again, basically

because of the number of tours involved and the lack of what they

consider adequate facilities. Again we will try to present this in detail in the statement which you may give consideration to.

With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I

thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you this morning.

If I can respond to any questions or inquiries I will be very pleased to

do so.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nilan. We are very happy

to have your testimony and we are more than glad you presented a

progressive point of view.

Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. I welcome you here this morning, Mr. Nilan. It

is always a pleasure to listen to your presentations. I wonder what

you would do in some of these cities which are very old where post

Aiss
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 15

offices have been established and where there is no question about

traffic congestion and there is no available space?

Take, for example, my own city of Jersey City. The merchants are

continuously complaining of the lack of parking facilities and bringing

great pressure to bear upon the mayor and the local government

authorities to provide these facilities. It would be quite a problem

I imagine in a city like Jersey City for the Post Office Department to

get the required parking facilities. I know that in one establishment

there—I am trying to think of the proper name of the facility there—in

a truckline the Post Office Department has leased space to accommodate the many employees of the Department who do work in that

truck facility.

Mr. NILAN. We made this suggestion in a number of postal installations where the physical area permitted it. I am not familiar

with your situation but I think of a number of post offices, including

again my home office of Minneapolis. We had encouraged the Post

Office Department, submitted rough drafts, to have the Department

extend the ramp area at the back end of the post office out over the

railroad tracks, make an arrangement with the railroad company to

extend the ramp out and build up and have drive-in parking out there

for the Government vehicles, particularly Government vehicles, which

in turn would take them off this one parking space and would create

an additional number of parking facilities.

Many post offices have a post office garage which may be adjacent

to the building or within a block or so of it. We have suggested in

some areas that perhaps an additional couple of floors or three floors,

whatever the building could stand, could be added to it. We have

suggested these two proposals in various cities where the facilities

would permit. I might add, also, it has been our experience again

that more often than not when you start checking to find out about

Government-owned land within an immediate area of a postal facility

or Government building, it is really amazing how much Government

land is around in the various different cities.

I can think of one officer of the organization from Los Angeles,

former officer, who did a marvelous job out there when he was able

to find out and research the land the Government actually owned.

In turn he was able to persuade them to make it available for parking

facilities. I think this again is an area which could be explored.

I do submit that the question of whether it is GSA or the Post

Office is a moot question. If Government property is available,

certainly if it is a Federal building or postal building, whichever is

involved, if it is available there is no reason it should not be made

available for parking facilities. We feel if the Post Office Department

would avail themselves of the property which is available, whether

Government or post office property, if they would progressively

build or establish parking facilities in the space and property available

to them, they would make tremendous strides toward alleviating

these conditions.

As I say, we have to speak only from experience, and it has been

our experience, that even though the Department indicates interest

it is always a question of budgetary considerations. While I know

this is important, it seems any area we get intp the Department is

unable to realistically recommend the necessary budgetary arrangements to handle such facilities.
16 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Again we suggest this is an area which certainly could be improved

on through administrative action.

Mr. DANIELS. What is the policy of the Department, as far as

you know, with respect to the leasing of new facilities for post office

operations?

Mr. NILAN. Congressman, just before you came in I mentioned to

the chairman that I was very pleased for the first time to see the

Department's policy enunciated in a statement, as they did this

morning, which is one. They say they tried to arrange one parking

space for each four employees plus 20 percent additional as the need

may be demonstrated. They said we had not understood this as

policy before. We did understand there was some general yardstick

they would use but again when they apply even this yardstick,

assuming this is their policy and I have no reason to question the

previous witnesses, even if this is true we find in many, many instances

where this type of parking space is not made available.

I think Grand Forks, Minn., is the most recent instance where they

got a new facility up there and the members of the organization

finally had to go to their colleagues in the Senate as well as I believe

the Congressmen from the area up there in order to get even the 1

and 4, and the 1 and 5, whatever the formula is in any area available.

They did not want to lease the space immediately adjacent to the

space in which the facility was being built. It was a good example of

not doing as I do, but do as I say.

Mr. OLSEN. Let me interrupt you there. The largest post office

building in the world is planned for New York City. It is going to

be 5 stories underground and 10 above ground. No consideration

whatsoever is being given to parking for employees or patrons. I

cited, while representatives from the Post Office were here, an uptown facility in Butte, Mont., which is not a large city, where all

five banks are providing parking for their employees and providing

parking and drive-in facilities for patrons. Even these bankers are

more progressive than we are.

Mr. NILAN. May I say this, Mr. Chairman, so there is no misunderstanding for the record: I did also state in the last 4 to 5 years I do

believe the Post Office Department has made a greater effort in

leasing arrangements or others to provide facilities. I say a greater

effort comparatively because they were practically doing nothing

before. By comparison there has been some improvement.

Again, I suggest there is an awfully long way they could go if they

wanted to go out and put up a show.

Mr. OLSEN. I would think they would want some authorization

so that they could go to the Appropriations Committee and get some

money for parking facilities for employees and patrons.

Mr. KREBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that I certainly agree with Mr. Nilan regarding the

question of garages. I think the future solution to this problem totally

will require that you have garages either underground or on the roof

of these new buildings they are putting up. There is little hope in

most cities. In some cities I think there is room to knock down some

slums and it would be a godsend in disguise to provide motivation

for knocking down .rat-infested slums. I think of the post offices

around Newark and New York City, around the 34th Street main post
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 17

office. Unless they come to the stage—and I would like to see this

committee recommend as a matter of policy for future postal facilities—that a garage be considered as important as the work area.

We have got to grow vertically. We cannot grow horizontally.

I would like to get some more information. You referred to the use

of commercial parking lots by some employees of the post office

system. I would like very much to see where this is occurring and

how much it costs them.

In any city, if you go to Chicago, Dallas, New York City, if you

park for a day it costs you $2.50, if you are lucky enough to get into

a lot. This comes to $12.50 a week, or $50 a month, or $600 a year

for a workingman to park his car so he can go to work? This will

become increasingly so as our population expands and the facilities

expand and the need for employees expands.

I would like very much to have something for the record that

indicates this is being done today, that employees of the Post Office

Department are required to spend out of their own pockets up to $2.50

to $3 a day to park their cars.

Do not forget a car is not the luxury it used to be. It is a question

with the highways we have of people needing a car to get to work.

This is as essential as the skills he has, particularly in New Jersey.

I think in most States—I am sure in Montana it is the same thing—

workers travel 25 to 35 to 40 miles a day to and from work. I would

like, if it is possible, for you to get some statistics on this.

Mr. NILAN. Yes, sir, I will try to.

Mr. KREBS. I am also pleased that you in your testimony raised

the question of our old friend comparability. Another survey that

I think would be most important, and I can just by closing my eyes

think of New Jersey, say that if you go by the Ford plant they have

parking lots probably occupying four and five times as much area in

square feet as the plant itself does. If you go through the area of

the Ford plant, it is the same thing.

Any large corporation, such as RCA, Western Electric, which is

the manufacturing arm of the telephone company, all of these companies have parking lots which are a matter of right. 'The working

people are not expected to pay out of their own pocket a couple dollars a day to rent parking space. Here again comparability gives

us another lever, too, to find out if we really mean comparability

as we have written it in Public Law 793 or if we did it to put verbiage

in there.

It is my judgment at this point, in view of the attitude of the Civil

Service Commission, it was for verbiage sake and nothing else. They

made no real effort, and I do not believe they are genuinely concerned

with accomplishing comparability in the full sense of the word.

In my judgment this would comprehend also the question of providing needed facilities such as parking areas. I do say that I think

the answer over the long pull in the future is for garages to be built

like the one across the street here. You are going to need them.

Insofar as New York City is concerned, God bless anybody who

works in New York City. They may be doing a humanitarian service

not to provide parking facilities in New York City. It now takes you

an hour to go from the east to the west side and I think from 8 o'clock

in the morning to 8 o'clock at night, any person has to have a hole in

his head to take a car into New York City. I mean it.
18 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

I think by and large the garage is the answer to all of our future

post office building problems. I think if you could get a study on the

number of square feet set aside for parking in the typical city by

private industry as compared to postal employees, it would tell a very

.compelling story.

Mr. NILAN. I will certainly try to cooperate.

Mr. Chairman, I say again in just referring to the two development

authorities in Milwaukee and Minneapolis, there was no question

there was an opportunity there for the Post Office Department to

actually purchase space there because it was all knocked down and

cleared out.

In the final analysis, to the best of my knowledge, they did not pick

up a parcel of land there. Again if they were really sincere these

were opportunities to do it. I am really confident these are not isolated examples but true in most cases throughout the country. Say it

is budgetary considerations. Unfortunately they will not face up to

the facts and come to you people in Congress and make legitimate,

realistic requests for necessary funds. I might add we have always

found the Congress sympathetic to our requests even though they

have not always been able to go as far as we would like to see them do.

Nevertheless, the sympathetic understanding is there and we find

in instances such as this the Congress would be equally considerate

with the patron and employee involved.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Nilan.

Mr. NILAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. OLSEN. Our next witness is Mr. James Rademacher, vice

president of the National Association of Letter Carriers.

Mr. Rademacher, we are very happy to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF JAMES RADEMACHER, VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS

Mr. RADEMACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is James

H. Rademacher. I am vice president of the National Association of

Letter Carriers, with headquarters at 100 Indiana Avenue NW.,

Washington, D.C. In more than 6,000 local branches throughout

all 50 of our States and Puerto Rico, we have 170,000 members—

whom approximately 30,000 are authorized to drive their personal

vehicles on their assignments, and who are therefore vitally and professionally involved in the fortunes of H.R. 5942.

The bill should be amended to have parking provided in areas

adjacent to all post offices, not just in offices of 200 or more employees.

Mr. Chairman, once again, the Post Office Department officials have

proven their major interest is economy. The Post Office Department

has an obligation. A member of the President's Cabinet has an

obligation to perform service to the people of this country. We have

never seen of late any representative of that Cabinet position, or of

that Post Office Department, ever come before this Congress and

recommend service to the people. Every statement that they have

made in recent years has been in opposition to any movement which

has been recommended by a Member of Congress and which would

mean service to the American people. We are a little tired of it.

We are a little tired of being the lobbyists for the American people to
•

PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 19

preserve the service with no help from Post Office officials. Certainly

this is one instance when the Post Office Department officials should

have come before this committee and said certainly they favor a position whereby the patron would be able to park his vehicle instead of

opposing the position. So long as the Congress provided the funds,

what difference would it make?

They come before you with such statements that said in effect this

bill could be construed as imposing the arm of Congress on a strictly

local area of responsibility. I think whether it is the arm of Congress

or the leg of Congress, it is the responsibility of the Congress to see

to it that the people that are using the services of the Post Office

Department have every service available.

They have accused you or inferred at least that you are dealing in

.an area which ought to be strictly local responsibility. We take

issue with that statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. The Congress is sponsoring urban renewal and many

local programs, and we are not supposed to do it with the post offices?

Mr. RADEMACHER. Apparently not.

Mr. OLSEN. But this has always been a constitutional area of responsibility of the Federal Government.

Mr. RADEMACHER. Right.

Mr. OLSEN. And now they tell us, "Congress is not supposed to

look after local affairs."

Mr. RADEMACHER. Before beginning my testimony, I want to

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having introduced this bill, which the

National Association of Letter Carriers strongly favors. I also want

to thank you and the members of this committee for permitting me

to come before you and express the views of our organizatioh on this

subject.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that in the area of providing off-thestreet parking for patrons and employees

'

the Post Office Department

is once again dragging its feet and almost purposely falling behind in

a parade it should be leading. The Post Office is not only the largest

service institution in the world, it is just about the largest business as

well. As a Government agency, it should be showing the way to

other major business enterprises in the country. Already, in this

particular field, it is far behind the industrial parade and seems intent

upon falling even further behind.

It is almost inconceivable that any large, national business enterprise would think—in this year of 1965—of building new sales outlets

without providing off-the-street parking facilities. You can take

Sears, Roebuck, Safeway, A. & P., or any other comparable corporation and you will find that the provision of adequate parking is considered essential to the success of their new outlets.

More and more, older outlets and older stores have found it neces-

.sary to follow suit, if they are to survive. In this day of the universal

use of the automobile, the provision of off-the-street parking is no

longer a luxury, it is an essential element for success. The public

,demands such facilities.

Post offices are essentially stores, selling essential goods and services

to the public at a price. Just because a post office is a Government

monopoly, it should not be exempt from the same consideration for

its customers that competitive enterprises in the private sector must

show if they are to continue to live.
•

20 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

In most cities of the United States the ratio of automobiles to available parking spaces is so out of proportion that it threatens to strangle

the downtown areas. In almost all these cities, it is mandatory to

provide off-the-street parking if one intends to erect a new building in

a congested area.

This is certainly true of Washington, D.C. When the National

Association of Letter Carriers built the annex to its headquarters here

a few years ago, it was mandatory for us to provide a certain amount

of off-the-street parking in order to get our building permit. This,

of course, we were delighted to do.

I might point out that this is a Federal ordinance, since it affects

the District of Columbia. It is a sorry state of affairs, Mr. Chairman,

when the Federal Government imposes upon its private citizens

certain necessary restrictions of this sort and then refuses to abide by

them itself.

The National Association of Letter Carriers has always been intensely interested in the improvement and the maintenance of the

postal service. We have expressed our great dissatisfaction—before

Congress and elsewhere—about the alarming deterioration of the service. We feel that this bill, Mr. Chairman, is necessary for the maintenance of even a semblance of modern service.

The patrons of the postal service today are disgusted and disenchanted to a point somewhere beyond irritation, and somewhere

short of mutiny. Their anger grows when they find that even on

those days and in those hours when the post office condescends to

accept their parcel post packages, they cannot even park their cars

close enough to the office so as to make their mission practical.

And if the answer to this is: "Let them use public transit," I

would suggest that those who make such answers try the experiment

of traveling the subway in New York City, let us say, during the rush.

hour, with a large and heavy package in his hands. Such an experiment would make a true believer of the most hardened departmental

skeptic.

When the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Belen, testified before

the Appropriations Subcommittee of the House of Representatives

last spring, he said:

One of the big programs we try to emphasize is firm delivery; to have business

firms come and get their mail.

As you know, we disapprove of this helpy-selfy cafeteria-style,

come-and-get-it, approach to the postal service. But we can predict

with complete confidence that it will be an absolute failure if the

business firms can find no place to park their vehicles when they

arrive to pick up their mail.

Surely it would be somewhat unreasonable—even in this decade

of decaying standards—to expect the mailroom employees of business

firms to lug their own mail sacks back to their offices in crowded buses

or subways.

I have spoken only about the postal patrons. I would like to add

something about the postal employees. Most postal employees,

clerks and letter carriers alike report for their employment early in

the morning when in most areas there is no transportation involved.

It is absolutely necessary that a vehicle be used.

Mr. OLSEN. I was going to make the observation that many cities

of under 100,000 population do not have public transportation.
4

PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 21

Mr. RADEMACHER. This is correct. It is worsening.

Mr. OLSEN. I am sure it is worsening.

Mr. RADEMACHER. They are in many areas eliminating transportation service entirely.

About one-fifth of the active letter carriers in the service must use

their own cars. They operate under drive-out agreements, which

means they must (upon payment of a fixed fee) transport themselves,

and anywhere from 5 to 10 "relays"—large bundles of mail—out to

their routes which may be a considerable distance away.

When there are no parking facilities at the post office, or station,

this means they must find a parking place where—where on a side

street, within what is often laughingly called walking distance from

the office. This is not only inconvenient to the men, but it causes

unnecessary inconvenience to the residents on those streets who want

those parking places for their own use. When the time comes for

them to drive out with their relays, they must walk back to their

cars, drive them back to the post office, and then set out on their

journey. This results in a considerable loss of efficiency.

If proper parking space were made available at the post office, or

nearby, the problem would not only be solved, but the places which

the drive-out carriers would vacate early in the morni,ag would then

become available for patrons during the rest of the day.

There has been much said, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, about making the Post Office a truly modern employer

and a model to the rest of the industrial community. There has also

been a great deal said about comparability.

I suggest, sir, that the provision of parking for employees enters into

the realm of comparability. More and more, private enterprise is

finding it necessary to provide some sort of parking space for its

employees if it hopes to attract or to retain them. This is hardly in

the area of "fringe benefits" any more; it has become a way of life in

our wheel-dependent society.

I remember an incident when I was president of the National

Association of Letter Carriers, branch 1, in Detroit, some years ago.

Representing my members, I asked our postmaster, Mr. Edward L.

Baker, if something could be done about the parking problem. Mr.

Baker—then as now, an excellent postmaster—was very sympathetic

and sought the assistance of the inspection service in finding a remedy.

The inspectors' refusal was both cold and emphatic. They let the

postmaster know that they had no interest whatsoever in the convenience of the postal employees, or in how difficult it was for them to

get to work, just as long as they got there on time and did the job

they were paid for.

When the postmaster wrote our complaint to the inspection service,

his letter came back with a marginal comment:

We are not interested in how the employees get to work or where they park.

We just want them to report to work on time.

I am sure the same situation applies elsewhere. Postal employees

have every right to expect their employer to be just as modern and

just as considerate as any employer in the private sector should be.

The postal patron has every right to expect that the post office

should be just as modern and considerate as any store or place of

business in private enterprise must be.
22 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

The provision of adequate parking facilities is necessary if the post office is ever going to meet these requirements.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for introducing this excellent bill, and thank you for permitting us to express our wholehearted:

endorsement of its provisions.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rademacher.

I find that you agree with me. I an" very happy.

Mr. RADEMACHER. Except that we feel there ought to be proper parking facilities in every post office.

Mr. OLSEN. I am glad for that reflection. I was, of course,, thinking of budgetary considerations and thought it might be un- realistic to write a bill that would provide parking space for every

post office.

Mr. Krebs.

Mr. KREBS. I do not have any questions. I want to commend

Mr. Rademacher for a very comprehensive statement and forcefully

delivered, including the ad fibbing he did.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much.

We will now call on Mr. Dan Jaspan, legislative representative,.

National Association of Postal Supervisors.

STATEMENT OF DAN JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS

Mr. JASPAN. My name is Daniel Jaspan. I am the legislative

representative of the National Association of Postal Supervisors,

composed of more than 28,000 postal supervisors, including those in

the motor vehicle and maintenance services. We have members in all

50 States, as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

We are very grateful to Chairman Olsen for scheduling H.R. 5942,.

a bill to provide parking space for automobiles of patrons and employees at postal installations.

At the beginning of your statement, you outline the problems and

how they would be resolved, as well as Mr. Krebs on the procedures..

I would like to add a little bit more to it.

The enactment of H.R. 5942 into law would solve a problem that.

is becoming more and more serious with the passage of each year.

Resolutions on this subject have been adopted by our conventions

for many years, the latest one at our most recent national convention

in Miami, Fla., 1 year ago.

It is becoming increasingly more difficult to find adequate parking

facilities near most post offices located in metropolitan areas, and even

in smaller offices. Public transportation is poor and often nonexistent,

at the odd times of the day that many post office tours begin or end.

This condition makes it almost mandatory for employees to use their

own automobiles.

In the relatively few instances where public parking facilities are

available, the parking fees are often prohibitive. In a constantly

increasing number of instances, local governments require adequate

parking space for patrons of an enterprise before permitting the construction of certain buildings. The number of private employers

providing parking spaces for their employees as well as for patrons

is growing rapidly.
4

PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 23

With the trend to the suburban way of living, automobile transportation is becoming even more of a necessity.

As the members of the Subcommittee on Postal Facilities and

Modernization know, there is little or no transportation available

during the early hours of the morning when it is most needed by postal

employees, including supervisors. Many hours are wasted going to

and from work if the employee is not able to use his automobile.

H.R. 5942 is the long-sought answer to this continually worsening

condition.

We are also interested in having adequate street, or off-the-street

automobile parking facilities for patrons of the postal service as well

as employees. Many of our patrons become frustrated at not finding

adequate parking facilities near the post offices where they want to do

then. mailing. This does not engender a good relationship. Since,

in our opinion, the postal service should be a public service, it follows.

naturally that adequate parking facilities for the public are only the

natural answer to a vexing problem.

We hope that this committee will take quick action, and that H.R.

5942 will be enacted into law at the earliest possible time. We

strongly support the section requiring provisions for adequate off-thestreet parking in any contracts for the construction, erection, purchase,

or lease of any post office with 200 or more postal field service employees. We also are hopeful that parking facilities will be madeavailable to employees in offices already constructed.

We thank you very much for the opportunity of presenting our

views.

Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Coffman was speaking he mentioned an

office with 1,000 employees, that would have 333 employees working

each tour. I do not think we will find an office like that where we

have 333 employees working in the day tour when they have most of

the work done at night from 5 or 6 p.m. and all through the night

rather than the daytime. This is one of these nonexistent post offices

he is talking about.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting our views and we hope

for favorable action in the very near future.

Mr. OLSEN. You are to be commended. What do you think about

the smaller communities, about their needs?

Mr. JASPAN. This is true to a certain degree, Mr. Chairman. In

some of these smaller communities the distance to the post office from

the home is small enough for the employees to walk. Parking problems very often are not as severe as they are in the larger communities.

I think that you will find most of the smaller communities have some

kind of municipal parking which is very reasonable. I have seen that

in many of the smaller towns where there is a municipal parking lot

near the post office. The charge for 2 or 3 hours is only 10 cents.

So we do have more of a problem as the office becomes larger in the

bigger cities.

Of course, we would have no objection to cutting that figure down

from 200 to whatever figure you believe would be the necessary

minimum.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. JASPAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. I see we have both Mr. Sidney Goodman and Mr.

David Silvergleid. We will hear from Mr. Goodman.
24 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY A. GOODMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

POSTAL UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID SILVERGLEID, SECRETARY, NATIONAL POSTAL UNION

Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will comment briefly beyond my

formal statement.

Mr. OLSEN. At this point we will insert your statement in the

record.

(Mr. Goodman's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SIDNEY A. GOODMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POSTAL

UNION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Sidney A. Goodman, and I am privileged to serve as president of National Postal Union, located

at 509 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. I am accompanied here by our

secretary-treasurer, David Silvergleid. We represent over 53,000 postal employees, organized in excess of 500 local affiliates in 50 States, including Alaska,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

We are grateful, Mr. Chairman, for your action in scheduling these hearings on

H.R. 5942, a measure to provide parking space for the automobiles of patrons and

postal employees at postal installations. The situation with regard to such

parking facilities, particularly for postal employees, has steadily worsened during

the past decade. As a result, convention after convention of our national union

has mandated us to seek the type of relief provided in H.R. 5942.

Federal, State, and municipal traffic managers are unanimous in recognizing

that the unprecedented use of the automobile has created serious crises with

respect to traffic maneuverability and parking. There is general agreement

that the situation must tend to worsen rather than improve, and there must be

much more reliance on off-the-street parking in future construction.

Inevitably, conditions in larger urban areas have reached a point where some

form of legislative relief is a necessity. In many instances, postal employees who

are compelled to use automobiles as the most expedient or only means of transportation, find parking within reasonable distance of the postal installation where

they are employed, almost impossible. Frequently, local postal unions are

compelled to run their own parking lots in self-defense. Patrons generally are

required to spend excessive fees, or lose considerable time, when endeavoring

to engage in postal business. This has created an unfortunate atmosphere of

hostility and ill will, directed principally against the Post Office Department

and postal employees.

We appreciate the fact that blueprints for new facilities being built, invariably

make good provision for cafeterias. The same is true initially, of parking space

for employees, but this is usually excluded in new facilities built in metropolitan

centers. In both instances, however, we have seen a repeated tendency to modify

plans at the last minute, to reduce space allocated for both cafeterias and parking

for employees, in favor of expansion of space for "operations." We feel strongly

that employee needs with respect to parking facilities in particular, should be given

greater consideration, and that this is an important factor in terms of morale, and,

therefore, ultimate real efficiency. We suggest that standards be set, not just in

theory but in fact, which would make it mandatory to allocate a minimum

percentage of space for employee parking needs, to preclude last minute changes

in plans, made at the expense of employee needs.

We sincerely believe that H.R. 5942 will ease the more critical conditions

resulting from the current lack of parking facilities. We urge its prompt approval

by this subcommittee.

We wish to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity of presenting our views

on this subject.

Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in emphasizing

that although the Department has shown a great deal of vigor and

imagination in "operations" they have been woefully backward in

this particular area.

I might point out that the new facility in New York City, the

Franklin D. Roosevelt project in which the Department is investing

z
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 25

something in excess of $50 million to my knowledge, makes no provision whatsoever for parking.

I might point out for the enlightenment of the distinguished

Member from the State of New Jersey, that we have many employees

of the New York Post Office who are necessarily compelled to commute

from New Jersey in their own areas on the midnight tour. They

work from 12 midnight to 8:30 in the morning. They cannot get

trains or at least they would have to spend hours in transportation.

We have even been unsuccessful in attempting to get the police

department to permit parking up until 8:30 in the morning. We tried

in vain to get this extended from 8:30 in the morning to prevent

them from getting tickets. To my knowledge—and this goes back

2 years ago-1 would say there were at least 200 or 300 employees

compelled to pay a dollar and a half a day for parking. They get it

that cheap only because they take it 5 days a week. This is the type

of situation we have.

Granted that the prohibitive cost of real estate in metropolitan

areas makes it a difficult problem, what we must criticize the Department for is the lack of initiative in this area. There is no legislation on the books but all the Department has ever issued is an administrative guide which provides, I think, nominally one parking

space for each four employees with a 20-percent tolerance.

The availability of parking facility tends to be a very decisive factor

in selection of tours and units within post offices. I think it was previously pointed out there are many postal employees who consider

this decisive. They are literally forced to take less desirable tours

or less desirable working assignments solely because they are thinking

in terms of parking facilities.

in New York City, I might add at that both Idlewild and the Postal

Concentration Center, we have had an acute problem for years,

partially solved because fortunately the welfare fund in New York

City, to my recollection again going back 2 years ago, had $400,000,

and partially subsidized it. Beyond that we have not only poor

morale and resentment but we have grievances.

I have in mind a problem which required two visits from national

officers from California where the postmaster, despite the fact he

was instructed in writing to negotiate the use of limited facilities in a

local contract under H.R. 10988, flatly refused to do so.

I have in mind a situation in Texas. I will read part of a letter

dated December 23, 1964:

Our Corsicana Post Office is in line for some extensive remodeling and enlarging

starting early in 1966. Additional land has been purchased, and the plans call

for a 40-foot by one-half block of lawn at the rear of the building.

I might add this took place prior to the Department's program for

beautifying post offices.

What we employees need is parking space for our automobiles while we are

working. Each year the parking situation gets worse. The 40-foot by one-half

block of space, to be used for a lawn, would be very useful to us as a parking space.

What use is a lawn at the rear of the building? Consider the expense of starting,

watering, and maintaining a lawn.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we took this up with the appropriate officials of the Department and were assured that this would

be corrected in July of this year. It is not yet done but we are hopeful

we will achieve some measure of success. I merely cite this example

•
Pt

:26 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

of the type of thing that may not be brought to your attention but it is

constantly going on over the country.

Mr. Chairman I want to suggest and urge strongly that the bill be

amended liberally to provide for parking space at facilities having

25 or more employees, as was indicated by an earlier organization

'spokesman.

That substantially concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for the opportunity of commenting.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman.

As usual, you have a very progressive outlook, as do all the organizations. They know the Post Office would do a lot more business

if they gave more service. I mean service to patrons and employees.

I wish all of the employee organization people would give some

thought to what kind of a yardstick we should use for patron parking

:space. We have not had any suggestions along those lines except

from the Post Office Department, which says it should be in proportion to rented lockboxes.

I wonder if we could not have a yardstick on the amount of business the Post Office does?

Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think it was pointed out

by a member of the committee there are well-known criteria, well

known calibrated standards for providing x amount of feet for x

number of cars and people that expect to use a given area. I think

they are available. I would be glad to volunteer, Mr. Chairman, to

= elicit that and provide it for the committee.

Mr. OLSEN. Give us whatever idea you can. We will hold the

_record open. We might ask the other organizations to do the same

thing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman.

Now we have our friend, Mr. John McCart, operations director,

Government Employes' Council.

You may proceed, Mr. McCart.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL—CIO

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, we have supplied the subcommittee with our statement. I would like to ask your permission to

have it included as part of the record.

Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the

record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL—CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Government Employes'

Council recommends approval of H.R. 5942. AFL—CIO unions representing

postal, wage board, and classified employees throughout the Federal service

-comprise the council. They join in endorsing the pending proposal.

We desire to express our appreciation to you for offering H.R. 5942 and to

you and your associates on the subcommittee for arranging this hearing. The

bill will improve the service of the Post Office Department to the public, and will

afford employees of the numerous post offices a desirable innovation in making

the Department a more attractive place to work.

The purpose of Representative Olsen's proposal is to provide offstreet parking

facilities for patrons and employees within two blocks of post offices with 200 or

more employees.
f

PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 27

At a time when the Congress and the Department are properly concerned about

improving the postal service, H. R. 5942 offers a unique opportunity for achieving

that objective. Particularly in large urban communities, the limited availability

of public parking space for patrons to conduct their business at their local post

offices poses a serious problem. Most users must search for long periods for space

on the streets or must utilize privately owned parking lots. In the latter instance,

suitable parking may be located several blocks away from the postal facility. And

in many cases, the patron must pay the minimum fee for hourly parking, even

though he expects to spend no more than 5 or 10 minutes completing his postal

business. Thus, the users' experience in mailing or receiving letters and packages

,can be somewhat exasperating.

One of the basic aims of the Postmaster General is to speed the transmission of

mail so that the Department will serve the function for which it was founded.

Provision of parking space for users adjacent to the various post offices will aid

in the attainment of this objective by insuring a speedier flow of users as they

.conduct their post office business.

H. R. 5942 will be beneficial to post office employees also. Those who find it

necessary to use their automobiles to travel to and from work must pay, in many

,cases, large daily parking fees. In large urban communities where a post office

is located in the center of the city, the daily parking rate can amount to $2 or

more. On a weekly basis in these larger municipalities, this can represent as

much as $10, which must be subtracted from the individual's take-home salary.

The practice of companies providing parking facilities for employees is growing

steadily. Employers recognize that one of the most important considerations in

recruiting applicants and making jobs more attractive is the availability of parking

space.

I am confident that some subcommittee members have had the experience of

an applicant inquiring about the availability of parking during a preemployment

interview. Thus, there is a growing interest on the part of job applicants in

parking as one of the available "fringe benefits."

Beyond this, however, there is the consideration of whether the automobile

has become a sufficiently important mode of transportation for postal employees

to warrant the acquisition of parking space to accommodate their cars. We

believe that it has. Moreover, removal of their cars from on-street parking during

working hours will provide more space for the public to use, including those who

wish to transact business at the post office.

Adoption of this proposal by Congress will establish the Post Office Department

.as an enlightened employer. It will serve as an incentive for other employers.

In addition to joining the ranks of those companies now supplying such facilities,

the Department will be setting a desirable example for other Federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the council urges favorable action on H. R. 5942.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer our reactions to your important proposal.

Mr. MCCART. The unions associated with the Government Employes' Council endorse H.R. 5942. I do not intend to reiterate the

splendid case that has been made for this legislation by the other

witnesses. I would simply like to emphasize one or two additional

points. In addition to consideration of parking as a determining

factor on the employee side on tours of duty and preferred assignments,

it could very well be that this is one of the controlling factors in recruitment. Individuals, all other things being equal, may be interested or disinterested in postal service on the basis of availability of

parking space and the financial considerations attendant thereto.

When we think of the outlay that must be made by employees who

must use privately owned parking areas, I think we can also consider it in terms of a reduction of their take-home pay.

What they must invest in parking is that much less they can

bring home for their normal living expenses. On the positive side,

I think it is encouraging that in the early part of the hearing there

was an agreement by the Post Office Department that something

needs to be done about parking. Your bill proposes that.

The Post Office Department says that it has a policy on parking.

There seems to be a problem of reconciling these two points of view and
28 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

coming up with an acceptable policy for parking. So I think we start

off with that positive, constructive point.

One other aside, it seems to me that once you determine the policy,

that it would be well to make the availability of these spaces negotiable

under the contract arrangements that exist in the Post Office Department under Executive Order 10988.

One final.point, Mr. Chairman. The council desires to commend

you and your colleagues very highly not only because of what this

legislation will mean to employees of the Post Office Department

but also for its significance to employees of other departments because

the problem is not confined to the Post Office Department by any

means.

I think that the Post Office situation can serve as a very fine pilot

study so that when a solution is reached there it can be applicable

to the other Federal agencies. The situation is difficult there as well

for the employees and the patrons.

Mr. OLSEN. I think you would include the patrons of other departments as well?

Mr. MCCART. By all means.

Mr. OLSEN. Internal Revenue Service?

Mr. MCCART. Yes, sir; it must be an exasperating experience for

their patrons also.

Mr. OLSEN. In Helena, Mont., with a population of 26,000, people

have a very difficult time getting into the Internal Revenue Service.

They want to bring their money in, and they have a hard time getting

there.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MCCART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. The next witness is Mr. Ross A. Messer.

Mr. Messer.

STATEMENT OF ROSS A. MESSER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am

Ross A. Messer, legislative representative of the National Association

of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees, with

headquarters at 724 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

This association is the national exclusive bargaining representative

with the Post Office Department for the 17,000 postal field service

maintenance employees, as a result of a nationwide election in 1962.

This association has locals in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, and the District of Columbia.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for the introduction of H.R. 5942, to provide parking space for the

automobiles of patrons and postal employees at postal installations.

This is a situation that has been neglected far too long.

H.R 5942 will improve the service of the Post Office Department

to the public, and will afford the employees of the numerous post

offices a desirable innovation in making the post office a more attractive place of employment.
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 29

The purpose of H.R. 5942 is to provide off-street parking facilities

for patrons and employees within two blocks of post offices with 200

or more employees. Mr. Chairman, this would be a wonderful

fringe benefit for the many employees who are required to drive to

4nd from work. This proposal will benefit many postal employees;

however, I am thinking of the many post offices with less than 200

employees in cities where there is no public transportation. They

should also be provided with adequate facilities for the parking of

their cars, as well as facilities for patrons of the post office.

With this thought in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest

an amendment on page 2 of H.R. 5942, on lines 1 and 4, by striking

out "two hundred" in both lines and inserting in lieu thereof "twentyfive". This would benefit thousands of employees and patrons of

the smaller post offices who have the same difficulty finding parking

spaces as employees and patrons in larger cities.

The Post Office Department is building many new facilities in the

suburban areas that are not served by public transportation. This

necessitates the employees to drive to and from work; therefore they

must have parking facilities for their cars or pay parking fees ranging

from $1 to $2.50 per day. This is an added expense or you might call

it a hidden expense that the employee did not know about when he

first accepted employment in the main post office in the center of the

city.

Many of the large industries today furnish parking facilities for their

employees. It is our belief that the Post Office Department or the

Federal Government should follow the practice of private industry

and furnish ample parking facilities for their employees as well as the

public using these Government facilities to transact business.

"Comparability" is a good word. We hear much about Government salaries and comparability. However, we have not as yet

reached this comparability in salary and from all indications this may

be many years in the future. Why not apply comparability in another

direction. Place postal and Government employees on a comparable

basis with employees in private industry by furnishing adequate

parking facilities for them.

Mr. Chairman, it is the belief and hope of this association that this

subcommittee will take favorable action on H.R. 5942, with due consideration to the amendment that I have proposed on page 2 to make

the bill apply to post offices with 25 or more employees.

I wish to again thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today and express the views of this association oi H.R. 5942.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Messer.

The next witness is Mr. Everett G. Gibson.

Mr. Gibson.

STATEMENT OF EVERETT G. GIBSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE MOTOR VEHICLE EMPLOYEES,

AFL—CIO

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Everett G. Gibson. I am president of the National

Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees. We are affiliated

with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
30 PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Organizations, and the Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO,

with offices at 412 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C.

We have national exclusive recognition under Executive Order

10988, and are the sole bargaining representatives for all motor

vehicle employees under the terms of the national agreement with the

Post Office Department. Our membership consists of garagemen,

automotive mechanics, vehicle and tractor-trailer operators, technical

mechanics of the rank-and-file employees. We also have locals with

formal recognition for all of our supervisors of both the maintenance

and operations divisions of our service. Our personnel maintain the

maintenance of all Government-owned vehicles used by the Post

Office Department and haul all bulk mails from terminals, airports,

and post offices.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate

this opportunity to express our views on H.R. 5942, introduced by

the chairman, Congressman Olsen. Our organization has adopted

resolutions that would provide parking facilities for our members, at

each national convention since 1952. Therefore, we wholeheartedly

endorse H.R. 5942.

Today, some of our facilities do provide parking for our employees,

and also for carriers who operate our vehicles. We have one facility

that permits the employee to park his vehicle in the space used for

the vehicle he is assigned to operate during his regular work hours

and when he returns to the facility, he parks the Government-owned.

vehicle in the space where he had parked his own private vehicle.

This has relieved the employee of having to pay for parking and at

no inconvenience to the Department. It is our opinion that if this

same system was permitted at all facilities, it would relieve some of

the problems.

The Motor Vehicle Service employees work around the clock, and

in many cases not on a three-tour basis. Transportation during

certain hours is not available for our employees and they must use

their own private cars. However, there are facilities, for example

New York City where the facility has been since 1928 when we had

1-ton Fords, and yet today, we have added tractor-trailers and larger

equipment which makes it impossible to even park the Governmentowned vehicles, and it is necessary to park most of these vehicles in

the street, which prevents the employees from parking in these spaces

near the facility because the facility is not adequate to house its

own vehicles. In fact, this situation has become so serious that the

Post Office Department now parks the vehicles assigned to specific

post offices at these post offices. We would recommend in the future

that facilities be obtained that could house all Government-owned

vehicles and the spaces now used to park these vehicles could be

available to the employees and patrons at these post offices, and also,

that employees operating Government-owned vehicles be permitted

to park within the facility, which would relieve a part of the present

condition until main post offices were constructed that would include

sufficient platform space and parking areas for the employees and

patrons.

We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee,

for the opportunity to express our views on the pending H.R. 5942,

and sincerely hope that this committee will approve H.R. 5942, that
PARKING SPACE FOR PATRONS AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES 31

will provide adequate parking facilities for both the employees and

patrons at post offices with 200 or more employees.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gibson.

Our next witness is Mr. Harold McAvoy.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD McAVOY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, POST

OFFICE MAIL HANDLERS, WATCHMEN, MESSENGERS & GROUP

LEADERS

Mr. McAvoY. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee.

For the record my name is Harold McAvoy. I am national president

of the above-named organization. We are part of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the

Government Employes' Council.

We fully endorse the principles as outlined in H.R. 5942. Legislation along said lines is long overdue and we, as a national organization,

urge you and the committee members to give speedy and favorable

consideration to this worthy piece of legislation, and that said legislation becomes the law of the land in this session of Congress.

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before your subcommittee.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. McAvoy.

Are there any other witnesses?

Being none, the subcommittee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned.)

0