4

.1' 8411°

P fo-is5 

LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES

\r‘

GOVERNMENT FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Storage

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

=. s_q COMMITTEE ON

0 OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 6092, S. 1459, and similar bills

BILLS TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING

TO LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL

EMPLOYEES

AUGUST 31 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 1961

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

•

ep

1 OCT 13 61 .tc,,

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1961
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY,

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

JAMES C. DAVIS, Georgia

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

RICHARD H. 'CHORD, Missouri

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

CATHERINE D. NORRELL, Arkansas

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

Tennessee, Chairman

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York

KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 6092, S. 1459, AND SIMILAR BILLS

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania, Chairman

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

MORRIS K. 'UDALL, Arizona

II

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALI.HAUSER, New Jersey

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Brawley, Hon. H. W., Deputy Postmaster General, presented by Hon. B. J. Beary, Deputy Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau Page of Personnel 22 Emeigh, John W., secretary, National Rural Letter Carriers Asso- ciation 11 Gibson, Everett G., legislative director, National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees 33 Halpern, Hon. Seymour, of New York 21 Karth, Hon. Joseph E., of Minnesota 10 Keating, Jerome, vice president, National Association of Letter Carriers 2

Ledbetter, Donald M., secretary, National Association of Postal Supervisors 12 Lesinski, Hon. John, of Michigan 18 Macdonald, Hon. Torbert H., of Massachusetts 21 MacKay, John W., president, National Postal Union 31 Martin, Tommy M., president, National Rural Letter Carriers' Association 11 McAvoy, Harold, national president, National Association of Post Office and Postal Transportation Service Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, and Mail Handlers in the Bureau of Facilities 14 McCart, John, director of legislation, American Federation of Govern- ment Employees 34 Merrow, Hon. Chester E., of New Hampshire 18 Messer, Ross A., legislative representative, National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees 15 Morrison, Hon. James H., of Louisiana 17 North, Roy M., legislative representative, National Association of Postmasters of the United States 13 O'Connor, John F., legislative director, United Federation of Postal Clerks 

Raley, 9

Bun, legislative representative, National League of Post- masters 35 Riley, George D., legislative representative, AFL—CIO 11 Silvergleid, David, secretary-treasurer, National Postal Union 10 Smith, Ashley G., president, National Affiance of Postal Employees_ _ 36 Sullivan, Hon. Leonor K., of Missouri 20

in

,

,k4:3
\
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMmn-rEE ON POST OFFiCE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 : 25 a.m., in room

215, House Office Building, Hon. Kathryn E. Granahan (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The subcommittee will please come to order.

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has delegated to

this subcommittee the following bills: H.R. 6092, by Mr. Morrison;

H.R. 6502, by Mr. Halpern; H.R. 8473, by Mr. Fulton; H.R. 8758,

by Mr. Lesinski; H.R. 8959, by Mr. Perkins; and S. 1459.

(The bills H.R. 6092 and S. 1459 follow:)

[H.R. 6092, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the provisions of law relating to longevity step increases for postal

employees

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

of America in Congress assembled, That subsections (a) and (b) of section 3558

of title 39 of the United States Code are amended to read as follows:

"(a) There are established for each employee longevity steps A, B, and C.

For each longevity step to which he is entitled each employee shall receive an

amount equal to one step increase for his position.

"(b) Each employee shall be assigned to—

"(1) longevity step A at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of ten years of service;

"(2) longevity step B at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of thirteen years of service; and

"(3) longevity step C at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of sixteen years of service."

SEC. 2. No increase in compensation shall result from the amendment made

by this Act prior to the first day of the first pay period following the date of its

enactment.

[S. 1459, 87th Cong., 1st sees.]

AN ACT To amend the provisions of law relating to longevity step increases for postal

employees

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

of America in Congress assembled, That subsections (a) and (b) of section

3558 of title 39 of the United States Code are amended to read as follows: "(a) There are established for each employee longevity steps A, B, and C.

For each longevity step to which he is entitled—

"(1) each employee, other than a postmaster at a post office of the

fourth class or a rural carrier, shall receive an amount equal to one step increase for his position,

"(2) each rural carrier shall receive an amount equal to one step

increase for salary level PFS-4, and

1
S

2 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

" (3 ) each postmaster at a post office of the fourth class shall receive

an amount equal to one step increase for salary level PFS-1 or to 6 per

centum of his basic salary, whichever is the lesser.

In computing the percentage increase under this subsection the amount of the

increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. A half dollar or one-half cent

shall be rounded to the next highest dollar or cent, respectively.

"(b) Each employee shall be assigned to—

" (1 ) longevity step A at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of ten years of service; and

"(2) longevity step B at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of thirteen years of service; and

" (3 ) longevity step C at the beginning of the pay period following the

completion of sixteen years of service."

SEC. 2. No increase in compensation shall result from the amendment made by

this Act prior to the first day of the first pay period following the date of its

enactment.

Passed the Senate July 17, 1961.

Attest:

FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Our first witness will be Mr. Jerome Keating,

vice president, National Association of Letter Carriers.

STATEMENT OF JEROME KEATING, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chairman, I have been authorized to represent a number of organizations, including the Government Employes' Council which is a council representing between 500,000 and

600,000 employees in Government and 23 separate unions; the United.

Federation of Postal Clerks, and John 0' Connor, the legislative representative, is at my side.

The United Federation of Postal Clerks now includes the former

UNAPOC organization and the Postal Transport Union. Mr. Nagle

is here in the committee room, a former president of the Postal Transport. The Mail Handlers, Harold McAvoy, is present here today.

The Motor Vehicle Employees, Mr. Gibson, was here earlier. He

has left, however. The Custodial Employees, who are not affiliated

with the council, but Ross Messer is the legislative representative. I

speak in their behalf. George Warfel, the president of the Special

Delivery Messengers, was here earlier too, I believe.

We are all in absolute agreement on this legislation. The bill is a

very important bill. The Senate bill is the bill that does the things

that have to be done a little bit better than the other bills.

The Senate bill you will note, is a little longer and the principal

amendment to the Senate bill which is not contained in either the

Lesinki bill, the Morrison bill, or the other bills that have been introduced, is the provision for rural carriers.

The reason for that amendment is this. The rural carriers have a

little larger starting pay than other employees in level 4. Their pay

is composed of two elements. It is composed of a base pay, plus so

much per mile. Their starting level is a little bit higher and their

steps are smaller. When they reach the top grade figuring on an average of a 45-mile route, their pay is exactly the same as in level 4. But

because of the fact that the step increases are a little smaller, the bill

was amended so that their longevity increase provided for in H.R.

1459 is exactly the same as in level 4. The bill is very simple.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 3

Mr. DITISKI. It is my understanding we are considering H.R. 6092

but Mr. Lesinski's bill was substituted also.

Mr. KEATING. Congressman Morrison and Congressman Halpern

have bills and the Lesinski bill is essentially the same.

Mr. DIILSKI. As S. 1459?

Mr. KEATING. S. 1459 has this rural amendment which is not in any

of the other bills. We recommend the passage of S. 1459 exactly as

it is written.

The bill does two things actually. It corrects a longtime injustice.

The first longevity pay increase was provided for in Public Law 134

that was passed in 1945. . Under the provisions of that act the longevity

increase was given only to employees in first-class post offices and not

to all employees in first-class post offices. For example, it did not

include supervisors. But at that time it was what was known as a

meritorious increase and required 3 years in top grade.

In 1949 the bill, as passed, didn't give credit for past service so

none of the employees received longevity or meritorious increases at

that time, even though legislation was passed.

In 1949 a bill was passed that gave credit for past service. And

following that there were two bills passed that year having to do with

postal longevity. The first bill merely gave credit for past service—

I think that was bill 428—and then Congress passed 530 later on,

which extended the longevity to employees in all classes of post offices.

When the bill was amended it set up the longevity provision. The

longevity provision which affects all postal employees now provides

for longevity increases at the end of 13, 18, and 25 years. At the same

time-1949—the Federal employees didn't have any longevity provisions so a bill was passed providing longevity for Federal employees.

The essential thing, I think, is that in 1945 and again in 1949 when

the step increase for postal employees in level 4 was $100, longevity

was set at $100. When the longevity bill for the classified employees

was passed—and that was the last one taken up; the last one passed—

instead of $100, it provided for an amount equal to their step increase.

The step increase in grade 5 in the classified service at that time

was $105 so those in grade received the same at that level and they

received more at higher levels. They received $5 more than the

postal employees. In our opinion Congress went along with the same

principle that was established. I think Congress wanted the longevity

step to be the same as the step increase in the automatic pay grades

but instead of defining it that way they put it down as X number of

dollars.

During that time the pay schedules have changed, the cost of living

has gone up, taxes have increased tremendously, and the situation

has developed where a letter carrier or a clerk in level 4 who goes from

the second longevity step after 18 years of service into the third longevity step which he qualifies for after 25 years service, he gets a takehome pay increase of $3.60 a month. That is a man with three dependents. He gets $1.80 a payday. Longevity is supposed to be a

reward for faithful service. It is supposed to be an incentive and

certainly $1.80 a pay period, 90 cents a week, isn't a very great incentive.

We think that this bill which would place it upon the same automatic step increase as the classified employees receive is a very just

bill.
4 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

To illustrate, in level 4 of the postal service, the step increase is

now $160. The beginning salary at level 4 in the postal field service

schedule is $4,345 a year. The starting pay in grade 5 of the classification service is exactly the same dollar amount. We receive increases of $160 a year in the automatic pay grades. In grade 5 of the

Classification Act they receive $165. Of course their top salary is considerably more than our top salary. They have more steps involved.

They go up to $5,830. We go up to $5,305. Essentially then,

their longevity steps are $165 and the comparative grade in postal

service is only $100.

What we are asking here is equality and equalization in the matter

of longevity step increases.

Now there is another problem that is also involved in another part

of the bill that is very important and that is this bill provides that the

longevity increases shall be given after 10, 13, and 16 years.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Those are two separate items: One to make the

longevity increases which you just mentioned—

Mr. KEATING. The same as the step increase and the other 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Make the increase the same as the step and also

shorten the number of years.

Mr. KEATING. From 13,18, and 25, to 10,13, and 16.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Is that about what the classified workers are

getting?

Mr. KEATING. There is a little difference there. I want to ex,

plain that and give you the pros and cons of exactly how it operates.

We would provide 10, 13, and 16 for postal employees. With classified employees their longevity is on a different basis in that regard.

They receive it after 3 years in the top pay step in a given grade.

The receive the second step after another 3 years and a third step

after a third 3 years.

If they enter the service and they stay in the same grade all the

way through, they will get their longevity after 10, 13, and 16 years

of service.

The argument has been made that if they move into a new grade,

that they don't get their longevity. However, there is a grave difference between the two services that I think I should point out. There

is a recent study that has been put out by the Civil Service Commission that came out within the last month. In this study they gave

the average and median pay of the four different classes of Government employees in the United States. In the Classification Act the

average is $5,697. Wage board's $5,386. Postal, $4,853, and other

pay systems, and some who have their salaries set by administrative

decisions, the average is $6,617. That is in the United States.

Now the median for the Classification Act is $4,940. Wage board is

$5,387. Postal is $4,875, and the other systems and the administrative

group is $5,430.

So you see the postal employees are at the lower end of the scale

in pay but there is another factor that I think is probably even more

important when you come to consider the longevity pay, and that is

when a postal employee enters a given level, the odds vary greatly,

10 or 12 or 15 to 1 that he is going to stay in that level until he retires. The reason for that is the fact that out of 505,237—and you will

find this chart on page 16 of the Senate hearings—out of 505,237 in-
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 5

eluding the hourly rate employees, and the substitutes, 524,983 are in

level 4 or below. In other words, the postal employees are in the

lower pay levels. The vast bulk of them.

On the other hand—and you can find this on page 9 in the statement

submitted by the Post Office Department—in the Classification Act,

out of 982,101 employees, 593,000 are above grade 5.

To explain the operation, when a man becomes a clerk or a carrier he

stays in level 4. He is not going to get out of level 4. All that he has

to look forward to after he reaches the top automatic pay is this longevity pay and then retirement. There is a very: small percentage

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Madam Chairman, may I interrupt at this point.

I think you are making a very telling argument here. I have read

that 65 percent of all postal employees remain in level 4 during their

entire career. If you took everything, including level 4 and below, it

would run as high as 75 percent.

Mr. KEATING. That is right.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Actually the only promotion a postal worker can

look forward to, is to become a supervisor.

Mr. KEATING. That is right. And the percentage is small. You can

see by the large percentage of employees that are in the operational

groups that the supervisory percentage is very small.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. So after he reaches his top pay in his level then

the only other emolument that he has to look forward to is longevity?

Mr. KEATING. Longevity; that is right.

And certainly it isn't much of an incentive to work 13 years and get

a 90-cent a week increase, and work another 5 years and get another

90 cents, and work another 7 years and get another 90 ceilts. We think

we have to modernize that step and give the employees the step

increase.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Would you say the inequity in this longevity step

increase, or this longevity increase I should say, has been somewhat

of a deterrent to employment of postal workers? Has this become

pretty well known throughout the Department?

Mr. KEATING. I would say this: I think one of the reasons for longevity is reward for faithful service and also to develop a favorable

morale factor. I don't think that at the present time it does that. I

think probably the reaction may be exactly the opposite. When the

man gets his check he doesn't hardly notice he has passed that level.

With the $100 in the old days—and of course they kept more of it then

because the taxes were less and the deductions were less 

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I should think the older employees who are dissatisfied with this longevity pay increase might by word of mouth

discourage other folks from coming in.

Mr. KEATING. I think that that is very true.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Would that be possible?

Mr. KEATING. That definitely would happen.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Keating, this would be comparable to the in,

crement that State employees receive, would it not, in longevity?

Mr. KEATING. Yes. Of course as conditions change, if the step

changes—I think it is good administration to pass this bill too—and

it is too bad it wasn't put on that basis in the first place. Because

automatic adjustments would have been made every time there is a

74855-61----2
6 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

pay adjustment. Now that hasn't been done and what this does, I

think it goes back and corrects what was a mistake perhaps in Public

Law 134.

Now at that time in 1945 and even in 1919 there wasn't anybody

alive who could foretell what was going to happen in this world of

ours. They had the idea at that time that they were going to level

out and get to the actual point where things were going to come down

so the $100 looked like a good proposition then and I am not criticizing

it. But in the light of what happened and in the light of what is apt

to come from what we can see today it certainly isn't a good policy to

continue and I think this bill certainly ought to be reported out.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I agree with you thoroughly. I do not think we

can think of retrogressing, we must progress.

Mr. Dur.sm. In reading the report of the Senate hearing, I would

like the record to show I think Senator Monroney has made a good

statement which I have taken out of context but I have referred to

some of the words. It is on page 15 he says:

I would like to say that it seems to me that while we have been increasing

salaries for all Government workers it has been the submerged situation of these

employees that we are dealing with here which has always been the cutting

edge of the argument for the increases. I mean each year when the pay bill

comes up it has generally been the letter carrier and the clerk rate that have

Influenced the whole general upward movement.

I think he has made a good statement there and I concur with him

wholeheartedly.

Mr. KEATING. He did a splendid job on the floor, too.

Incidentally, just to make this a matter of record, there was a substantial amount of debate on this bill when it was on the floor and

all of the statements were favorable to it in the Senate and there were

some very fine statements made in support of this legislation.

There was a fairly substantial amount of debate on this bill. It

corrects an inequity and we sincerely hope you will be able to report

it out exactly as passed by the Senate.

I might also point out that we are up against this situation: The

Congress is moving toward adjournment. I know that you are all

hoping that that will happen soon and if the bill is exactly the same

as reported out by the Senate and can be acted upon by this committee,

the chance of final enactment this year would be much improved.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is staying in line with the usual situation

when it comes to the postal employees. We wait until the last minute.

Mr. KEATING. We sat in the gallery one morning until 3 o'clock and

many times our bills have been the last ones acted upon in the Congress.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is my point. Something happens which

seems to postpone your legislation until the small hours of the mornin about the day of adjournment.

. KEATING. We are used to twilight.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Perhaps the Department would be in a better

position to answer this, but would you have any idea as to how many

employees would be affected by this longevity change?

Mr. KEATING. I think they have a statement in the record.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I have seen an estimate.

Mr. KEATING. There are three estimates of cost.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. One of them I believe by your organization is

$30 million.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 7

Mr. KEATING. Yes, $30 million.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. The other is 50-some-odd million dollars.

Mr. KEATING. I think $55 million, and I think the committee came

up with $45 million. So there are three estimates of cost.

The committee costs may be fairly accurate. They figure it would

be around $40 or $45 million.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Were not your figures fairly well estimated, with

that $30 million?

Mr. KEATING. I think they were. Well, here you have the figures.

There are 162,749 employees presently in longevity grades.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. That is the figure I wanted to get into the record.

Mr. KEATING. There would be more added. Those between 10 and

13 years would be added. In level 7 you have 228,000 employees and

the total that Mr. Murphy has is—well, that is the figure I just read,

253,000.

No, this is the total for everybody. The longevity. That is the

total for everybody. There are 228,480 in level 7. Some of them will

move up to longevity. Probably it will affect roughly around 200,000

employees or a little better.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. But you do make the statement, do you not, that

your cost estimates were based on some reasonable figure?

Mr. KEATING. Yes, we use reisonable criteria. We used the best

figure we had. There is an area in here where there can be wide disagreement unless you break the figures down finer than they are now.

You would have to break down level 7 to get an exact cost and I think

when we get in that area, we all guessed and everybody guessed a little

bit different.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you.

Mr. KEATING. You are pretty sure on what is in the longevity but

when you get into level 7 then you are estimated.

In statistics it depends on what norm you use, what the figures you

come up with will be.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Keating, we have just received a report from

the Department which we have been after.

Now what was your figure on the cost?

Mr. KEATING. $30 million.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. They say $60 million.

Mr. KEATING. How much? •

Mrs. GRANAHAN. $60 million.

Mr. KEATING. Well, they have gone up a little bit since the last time.

I think it was $59 million or $55 million.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In the Senate they mentioned a figure. One of

the Senators asked that their estimate of cost be justified and they sent

up evidently a supplemental statement. I think their study was $59

million.

Mr. KEATING. I think that figure is high. I remember a long time

ago when John Lyle was on this committee, that was a long time ago,

he said he noticed when the agencies or departments came up, if they

were for a bill the cost was low but if they were against it the cost

was high. I think that usually prevails and perhaps when em

groups come up maybe their figure is a little low sometimes.

-;

i r - 61 -4

C

t47'
8 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Probably, do you think, Mr. Keating, on account

of the rural carriers being included, that might change the cost?

Mr. KEATING. I don't think it would change it too much. You see,

the difference was only a few dollars a step.

Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Keating, in this letter we just received from the

Postmaster General today, would you care to comment on his statement, "The total effect of the present longevity provision is to give

postal employees several distinct advantages over Classification Act

employees, to increase the amounts of these payments and further

reduce these servicetime requirements for postal employees would

magnify these advantages without justification"?

Mr. KEATING. We discussed that a little bit when we compared the

situation between classified employees and the postal employees. If

you start in grade 4 you get an ingrade increase. You go to 5, you

go to 6, and they are moved out when their job descriptions are

changed. Sometimes the changes are made without a change in their

actual duties. But a postal employee cannot do that. He stays where

he is. We feel that the postal employee is discriminated against in

this respect. I think they are discriminated against in pay, as the

mean average points out, and they are discriminated against in their

ability to move ahead.

Now certainly in the same level, the levels that are considered equal

to each other—level 4 in the postal field schedule, and grade 5 in the

classified schedule, even with the passage of this bill there is a $5

advantage in favor of the classified employee, in the longevity step.

Mr. ADDABBO. In other words there is greater chance of advancement

for employees under the Classification Act than there is in the postal

service?

Mr. KEATING. That is right.

Another thing I think I ought to point out too—even if they used

exactly the same terms that there are in the classified bill—in other

words if you stayed in grade and you serve 3 years, the majority of

our fellows would get their longevity at 10, 13, and 16, because they

stay in that level. They do not go anyplace else. So the great majority of them would get that increase even if the wording of the

language of the bill is exactly the same as the Classification Act. And

the reason that the classification people don't get it more is because

they do move up in these grades.

Mr. ADDABBO. Thank you: Madam Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. I wondered if the witness had commented on the median averages comparing classified and postal?

Mr. KEATING. Yes, we put that in the record. The average of the

Classification Act is $5,697; wage board, $5,386; postal, $4,853; and the

other acts and administrative positions, $6,617. This is from the

Civil Service report. The median in the Classification Act is $4,940;

$5,387 is wage board; $4,875 is postal; and the other pay acts and

administrative duties, $5,430. Postal is way low in the median and

still lower when you come to the average.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Keating.

Our next witness is Mr. John F. O'Connor, legislative director,

United Federation of Postal Clerks.

Mr. O'CoNNoa.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 9

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. O'CONNOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS

Mr. O'CoNNoR. I have no desire to go into any further detail. I

concur in all of the statements Mr. Keating has made here. I believe

he has presented a very good argument in behalf of the passage of

this legislation. I appreciate the committee meeting and giving us

an opportunity to present our case. I certainly hope, without question,

that you will report the bill.

I would like, if possible, to present a statement for the record. That

is all I have to say.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Without objection, the statement will be inserted

in the record.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. O'CONNOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED FEDERATION OF

POSTAL CLERKS

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John F. O'Connor and I am legislative director of the United Federation of Postal Clerks.

This is the new title of our organization that came about as a result of merger

agreements between the former National Federation of Post Office Clerks, the

former United National Association of Post Office Craftsmen and the former

National Postal Transport Association. As a result of these agreements we

are now merged as one organization.

May I express our thanks to the committee on scheduling hearings on H.R.

6092 and S. 1459. The members of our organization deeply appreciate the ac- tions of members of the committee and all other Members of Congress who have

Introduced similar legislation.

These bills recognize the present inequity existing in connection with longevity

pay for postal employees and are an effort to correct this inequity. Post office clerks, whom I represent, following their entrance into the postal service, re- ceive an ingrade increase in salary each year after satisfactory performance until such time as they reach the top of their salary level. Following this, and under the present law, they receive a longevity increase of $100 at the end of 13, 18, and 25 years of service. This longevity increase is also given on the basis of satisfactory and meritorious service. However, this $100 increase in the longevity grades for postal employees is a much lesser amount than that received under the in-step salary increases in cases of Federal employees outside of the postal service and was set many years ago.

In the ease of Federal employees outside of the postal service, they proceed

In the same manner as postal employees following their entrance into the service

as to salary increases. But, in the instance of longevity increases they continue

to get the amount of the in-step increase and in a shorter period of time, or after

10,13, and 16 years of service.

H.R. 6092 and S. 1459 will correct this inequity existing between employees of the same Government, inasmuch as it would adjust the longevity requirements for both salary and years for postal employees and make them equal to that of other Federal employees.

Longevity increases have long been recognized, both in the postal and Fed- eral service, as well as outside industry, as a reward for merit performance

on the part of the employee. They are a recognition of experience and know- how and an incentive for employees to do their best on the job.

Longevity increases, or for that matter all salary increases, are not auto- matic increases but are given only on the basis of merit, performance, and faithful service.

It is agreed that an increase such as provided in H.R. 6092 and S. 1459 will cost money, but we have every right to believe that this will be returned to the Government in increased morale and productivity on the part of postal employees. Frankly, it has a demoralizing effect on an employee to reach a

dead end street. This can be particularly true in the postal service where most employees cannot look forward to a supervisory or other promotion. Pro- motions are not available for more than one-eighth of the total group of postal employees.
10 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

The only reason longevity grades exist is to reward long efficient service.

It is too much to ask a man to stay on the same job for years, as do most

postal employees, without an increase in salary as a recognition of his faithful efforts in behalf of his Government.

The longevity grades as presently in the Postal Pay Act are antiquated and

as such should be corrected. The time left in this session is short and we,

therefore, urge that the committee do report S. 1459 or H.R. 6092 amended to

read as S. 1459. We believe it is reasonable and are certain that it is in the

best interest of the Government and the employees.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting our viewpoint and thank the

members of the committee for their consideration.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The next witness is Mr. David Silvergleid, secretary-treasurer, National Postal Union.

Mr. Silvergleid.

STATEMENT OF DAVID SILVERGLEID, SECRETARY-TREASURER,

NATIONAL POSTAL UNION

"Mr. SILVERG1LEID. The reason I wanted to make this statement,

-Madam Chairman, is that while we recognize that time is short during this session and perhaps it might be more opportune to permit an

identical bill to come out of the House if at all possible so that it

could be enacted during this session, nevertheless the union I represent has gone on record for an entirely different approach to this

problem. As a matter of fact, Madam Chairman, we have endorsed

the principles as set forth in your bill and in a similar bill introduced

by Congressman Joseph E. Karth, of Minnesota.

We believe that longevity payments, so-called, are not pay increases.

As a matter of fact at the Senate hearing the Post Office Department

representative tried to paint them under those colors and we objected

to that most strenuously.

We believe as I think the bill intends they be, that they are rewards

for long periods of faithful service.

On that approach and on that basis, we maintain there should be

no distinction in the amounts of reward given the lower paid and the

higher paid employees. We have endorsed the principles of the bill

espoused by you, Madam Chairman, whereby there would be four

longevity grades at $200 each for all employees in the postal service.

With regard to the fourth grade, we do not believe that after a,

man has put in 16 years of service, from that point on he should become completely stultified insofar as longevity rewards are concerned.

We believe he should have something else to look forward to in the

form of a fourth longevity increase.

We are asking the subcommittee at this time to think about it. To

give some consideration to that approach in their discussions and

considerations.

We certainly appreciate the fact that the subcommittee even under

these unusual circumstances has gotten together and is attempting

to get a bill out and we certainly thank you for it.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. George D. Riley, legislative representative,

AFL-CIO.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 11

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

AFL-CIO

Mr. RILEY. Madam Chairman, may I add the endorsement and full

underscoring of the AFL-CIO of the remarks made by the affiliated

representatives at the table today.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. john W. Emeigh, secretary, National Rural

Letter Carriers' Association.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. EMEIGH, SECRETARY,8TATIONAL RURAL

LETTER CARRIERS? ASSOCIATION

Mr. EMEIGH. We have a very short statement favoring approval

of S. 1459. Our recent national convention in Atlanta, Ga., unanimously passed a resolution requesting this action and I would like to

submit the brief testimony of President Martin supporting approval

of that legislation.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The statement will be received for the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF TOMMY M. MARTIN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RURAL Licrij CARRIERS'

ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tommy M.

Martin. I am president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, an

organization comprised of 38,420 regular, temporary, substitute, and retired

rural letter carriers.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to appear before this committee and

to express the views of this association on the legislation under consideration.

This organization very strongly supports action to improve the provisions of

present law relating to longevity step increases for postal employees. The present longevity grades A, B, and C, earned after completing 13, 18, and 25 years

of postal service, respectively, and which add $100 for each such grade to the

basic compensation of the employee, became effective November 1, 1949—almost

12 years ago—and there has been no change since that date. The $100 set as

the monetary payment for each such longevity grade in 1949 has become a rather

meager award for the service qualifications required in order to attain those

grades. The present provisions deserve to be up-dated and improved in order

that they will constitute a more adequate recognition of the years of postal

service which they represent.

We wish to express our appreciation to Representatives James H. Morrison,

John Lesinski, Kathryn Granahan, Joseph P. Addabbo, and other Members of

the House who have introduced bills to provide for improvement in the longevity

grade provisions of law. We also wish to express our thanks to you, Madam

Chairman, and to the committee for scheduling and holding hearings on this legislation.

The bill under consideration, S. 1459, was amended by the Senate Post Office

and Civil Service Committee to provide that rural carriers would receive longev- ity amounts equal to the amounts payable to employees in PFS, level 4—the

level in which most city clerks and carriers are classified. This corrected what would otherwise have been an inequity for the rural letter carriers.

Our national convention, just concluded August 18 in Atlanta, Ga., gave its endorsement to S. 1459 as passed by the Senate and directed full support of this association toward enactment. Speaking for the Nation's rural carriers,

we urge this committee to favorably consider this legislation and trust that it may be promptly reported to the House for action.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. We will now hear from Mr. Donald N. Ledbetter,

secretary of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.

Mr. Ledbetter.
12 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

STATEMENT OF DONALD N. LEDBETTER, SECRETARY, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS

Mr. LEDBE'rfER. Madam Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is Donald N. Ledbetter. I am the secretary of the National

Association of Postal Supervisors which is composed of almost 26,000

members, located in post offices throughout the 50 States and possessions.

I am appearing today in the place of Daniel Jaspan, legislative representative, who is Absent from the city attending the convention of

the National Leaguteof Postmasters.

I am especially glad to have this opportunity of appearing before

the committee headed by one of the first citizens of my home State

of Tennessee, Hon. Tom Murray.

We are grateful to the chairman and members of this committee for

scheduling hearings on S. 1459, the bill to liberalize longevity grades

in the postal field schedule. The members of our association feel that

if this legislation is enacted into law, the longevity grades in the

postal service will be more in keeping with what was intended by Congress when the grades were established in 1945. Postal service longevity grades will also be brought into favorable comparison with those

now existing in the Classification Act.

When the present $100 longevity grades in the postal field service

were first established as meritorious grades they represented the

amount of differential between steps in the salary scale. Today-16

years later—there are no PFS levels in the entire 20-level schedule

which have differential between steps as low as $100.

Salaries have increased over the years but the longevity grades

which originally represented the difference between steps have been

allowed to lag far behind. Actually, the $100 grade is not worth as

much now as it was in 1945 when you consider what may be purchased for $100 now as compared to 1945. The value of the dollar

has declined steadily during the period 1945 to 1961.

In private business many firms reward their veteran employees with

bonuses for long and faithful service. The size of the bonus is usually determined by the length of service of the employee. The bonus

becomes an incentive for an employee to stay with the firm. Both

the firm and the individual benefit when he does. Bonuses, of course,

are not possible in Government service. But Government profits by

retaining employees just the same as private industry does. Equitable longevity grades serve as incentives to employees to remain in

the Government service during their most productive years.

The cost of training new employees is tremendous. An incentive

such as the longevity grades proposed in S. 1459 would cause many

young employees in the service to make a career of the post office.

I am sure the members of this committee are fully cognizant of the

fact that :promotions in the postal service are few and far between.

Our association, of course, represents those employees who have been

fortunate enough to advance into the supervisory levels. I think it

is pertinent to point out, however, that of those few who actually attain supervisory positions, the large majority are never able to rise

above the first line of supervision—PFS 7— simply because there are

no opportunities. Longevity grades equal to the increment between
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 13

steps in the salary schedule such as proposed in S. 1459, would go a

long way toward compensating these employees for whom there is no

hope for further promotion.

Under the present longevity law, some employees in supervisory

levels are discriminated against in that they lose a longevity grade

upon promotion from a nonsupervisory position to a supervisory position. This is because the nonsupervisor receives longevity grades for

years in the top step of the level, whereas the supervisor receives longevity grades for total years of service. We urge that the following

be made a part of the bill:

Employees on the rolls on the effective date of this act shall be credited for

the purpose of promotion to longevity grades established under this act with all

periods of service heretofore rendered.

This would eliminate any doubt that credit for past service is intended.

'We thank the chairman and committee for this consideration of the

bill, and I want to thank you for permitting me to testify today for

the members of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. We will DOW hear from Mr. Roy M. North, legislative representative, National Association of Postmasters.

Mr. North.

STATEMENT OF ROY M. NORTH, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED

STATES

Mr. NORTH. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Roy M. North. I am legislative regresentative of the

National Association of Postmasters of the United States.

We are pleased to have the privilege of submitting a statement in

support of S. 1459.

Our association, composed exclusively of postmasters, from a modest beginning in 1898, now has a membership of 33,718 or 96 percent

of the Nation's postmasters.

This measure provides for three longevity steps, after 10, 13, and 16

years of service, each longevity to be equal in money value to the one

step increase for the employee's position.

These steps would supplant those under the present law after 13, 18,

and 25 years of service, each of $100 value.

We submit, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

that the proposed service periods for longevity recognition are more

realistic than the present arrangement.

A rapid turnover in personnel is costly. It is, of course, beneficial

to the Government to retain employees after expensive training periods. After 7 years in the level of his position, the employee reaches

the top step. It is disheartening for him to realize that his hope for

a next step up will not be realized until after his 13th year of service.

While, of course, some employees may be promoted to higher levels,

unfortunately, that recognition must necessarily go to only a select

few.

In this legislation, after reaching his top step, his next advancement

will be after the 10th year, with two more promotions after 3-year

74855-61-6
14 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

intervals. Therefore, this proposal gives the employee a chain of advancement when he needs the encouragement to make a career of his

postal service.

As to the amount of longevity, the $100 figure is outmoded and obsolete. When this amount was provided by law more than a decade

ago, it was a commendable action and it was equal to some of the grade

promotions at that time. Compared to present day prices, it is less

than half of its former value.

In our opinion, we should, in the postal field service, have the same

consideration as the classified service, longevities equal to the amount

of step promotions. This will mean, of course, longevity step promotions from slightly over $100 in the lower levels to more than $300 in

the higher echelons.

While the difference in amounts is significant, it seems sound to us

that if a postmaster or other postal employee enjoys a larger remuneration by reason of higher responsibilities, his longevity promotions also

should be in keeping with the step graduations of his level.

S. 1459 was amended by the Senate to more adequately take care of

postmasters at offices of the fourth class. Instead of the $100 or 5 percent, under present law, they will receive $130 or 6 percent, whichever

is the lesser.

This amendment was a source of considerable satisfaction to our association since these postmasters are dedicated postal employees who

represent a most important segment of the postal system.

There may be some witnesses who will oppose this legislation becauas

it will entail an increase in cost of postal operations and add to the

gap between revenues and expenditures of the Post Office Department. In that connection, may we submit that as managers of the

postal service in the field, we postmasters feel a strong responsibility in cooperating with the Postmaster General in his quest for

increased postage rates. We look forward to action by this Congress

in reducing the disparity now existing between outgo and income.

While this interest on our part has no direct bearing on the subject of this bill—more adequate recognition of length of service—we

feel that this insertion in our testimony is not untimely.

We have the finest postal service in the world today, which is a

source of pride to all postal personnel. The additional cost of this

bill will be more than repaid by appreciative employees in added

zeal and enthusiasm in the performance of their work.

Again, we strongly recommend to your favorable consideration,

S. 1459.

Thanks for your kindness in receiving our statement.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. North.

The next witness is Mr. Harold McAvoy.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD McAVOY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND POSTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MAIL HANDLERS, WATCHMEN, MESSENGERS,

GROUP LEADERS, AND MAIL HANDLERS IN THE BUREAU OF

FACILITIES

Mr. McAvoy. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

for the record my name is Harold McAvoy. I am national presi-
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 15

dent of the National Association of Post Office and Postal Transportation Service Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, Group Leaders,

and Mail Handlers in the Bureau of Facilities.

S. 1459 and H.R. 6092, the bill before you and the subcommittee

has the full support of our national organization.

The bill introduced by Senator Olin D. Johnston providing for an

adjustment for longevity pay is a giant step forward, especially the

provision that would change the longevity step increases to the

equivalent of the automatic increase.

Our national organization which is part of the Government Employees' Council and the AFL—CIO urges you, and the subcommittee

members to give speedy and favorable consideration to S. 1459 and

H.R. 6092.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before

you and the subcommittee.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. McAvoy.

We will now hear from 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, Madam Chairman and members of the

subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am

Ross A. Messer, legislative representative for the National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees,

representing the custodial employees of the postal field service and

General Services Administration with locals in the 50 States, Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Morrison

and the other members of this committee for their interest in correcting and liberalizing the longevity increases granted to postal employees. I also wish to thank you, Madam Chairman and members

of the subcommittee, for your interest in this subject and the scheduling of hearings on this very important proposal.

Meritorious grades were first established in the postal field service

in 1945 for certain employees after completion of 3, 5, and 7 years of

service in certain grades. Many postal employees were excluded from

the "meritorious grades" established in 1945. In 1949 and 1950

"meritorious grades" were changed to "longevity grades" and extended

to all postal field service employees including those excluded in 1945.

The meritorious promotions in 1945 were $100 each, and in 1950 the

longevity grades were established after the completion of 13, 18, and

25 years of service in the same amount, $100 each.

S. 1459 and H.R. 6092 would make the longevity increases the same

as the step increases of the various levels in the postal field service pay

schedule instead of $100. In 1945 when meritorious grades were

established and in 1950 when longevity grades were established the

step increases were $100 each for nonsupervisory employees. Supervisory employees had one salary grade with no step increases.

S. 1459 and H.R. 6092 would make the longevity promotions upon

the completion of 10, 13, and 16 years of service instead of the present
16 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

13, 18, and 25 years of service. The proposed changes in service requirement would place postal employees on the same years of service

basis as Classification Act employees and provide step increases which

is also the same as received by Classification Act employees.

In 1950 when longevity promotions were provided for all postal

employees the increases were $100 each. Since 1950 many changes

have been made and the purchasing power of the $100 longevity increase has steadily declined. It is our belief that longevity increases

in the same amount as step increases are justified and should be made

available to postal employees at the earliest possible date.

In private industry a large number of firms, both large and small,

reward their employees with bonuses, which are not permissible in

Government service. In many instances the bonuses begin after one

or more years of service and increase as the years of service and/or

salary increase. To some extent longevity increases for postal employees offsets bonuses to employees in private industry. While in

many instances bonuses in private industry are given after the first

year of service, we are asking the first longevity increase be granted

after 10 years of service, the second longevity after 13 years of service

and the third longevity after 16 years of service.

Our national convention of 1960 recommended four longevity increases of $200 each upon the completion of 10, 15, 20, and 25 years of

service. Due to the lateness of the session, and the fact that S. 1459

has been approved by the Senate, this association wholeheartedly

endorses the provisions of S. 1459 and H.R. 6092, providing longevity

increases upon the completion of 10, 13, and 16 years of service in the

amount of the step increase of the various levels.

Madam Chairman, it is our sincere hope that the subcommittee will

favorably report S. 1459 and that it may be enacted into law at this

session of Congress.

I wish to again take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to appear

before you today and present the views of this association on the liberalization of postal longevity promotions.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Messer.

The subcommittee will now adjourn until 11 a.m. Tuesday, September 5, 1961.

(Whereupon the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 11 a.m.,

Tuesday, September 5, 1961.)
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE

AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 11 a.m., in room 215,

House Office Building, Hon. Kathryn E. Granahan (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The subcommittee will come to order, please.

The subcommittee is meeting this morning to continue hearings on

S. 1459, H.R. 6092, H.R. 6502, H.R. 8473, H.R. 8758, and H.R. 8959,

companion bills to amend the laws relating to longevity step increases

for postal employees.

The subcommittee has received requests from Members of Congress

who have sponsored the various bills, as well as other Members of

Congress, to submit statements in support of the bills.

Without objection, these statements will be placed in the record at

this point.

(The statements referred to follow:)

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN JAMES H. MORRISON, OF LOUISIANA

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service for your efforts in affording an opportunity for hearings to be held on these longevity bills. The comments heard

from my colleagues indicate to me that these bills will receive your very earnest

consideration.

My bill, H.R. 6092, is identical to the several other bills as they were introduced. I believe the amendments made by the Senate to S. 1459 are highly desirable and I urge your favorable consideration of S. 1459.

The present longevity grades, A, B, and C, earned after completing 13, 18, and

25 years of postal service, respectively, add $100 for each such grade to the basic

compensation of the postal employee. This system became effective in November

1949. There has been no change since that time. The $100 was the amount of

the step increase for postal employees at that time. However, the $100 set as

a monetary payment for each longevity grade in 1949 has become a rather

meager reward for the service qualifications required in order to obtain those

grades. Over two-thirds of the postal employees are in level 4 and most of these

are clerks, carriers, special delivery messengers, and motor vehicle operators.

The majority of these employees will stay in level 4 during the entire period of

their postal service. Very few will ever be afforded the opportunity for promotion to a higher grade. It is correct to assume that the entire postal service of

the majority of all these employees is performed in one level.

The only fair conclusion that we can draw from this is that the longevity

system for these employees should be on a basis which takes this basic fact

into consideration. The Post Office Department contends that this legislation

is, in fact, a pay increase bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bills

embodying the principles of longevity pay were first introduced in the 70th

Congress in 1928. The principles were established at that time that longevity

17
18 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

increases were not pay increases. It was stated at that time that the longevity

increases must be considered as a reward for continuous service rendered. The

application of this principle has been applied continuously ever since. It is

considered to be a good employee practice, developing morale, increasing

efficiency, and reducing turnover. The principle of longevity increases has a

wide application in private employment and is being expanded constantly. It is

a reward for long and faithful years of service and experience.

This legislation will make two basic changes in the longevity increase system

for postal employees. It will permit the first longevity step increase to be

granted after 10 years of service and will permit the amount of the increase

to be equal to the amount of the step increase within the levels established by

the various schedules. Both of these principles are now prescribed for Classification Act employees.

Madam Chairman, I see no justification for the arguments raised by the Post

Office Department against favorable considerable of this legislation. I feel

sure that this subcommittee will give the favorable consideration to this bill

that it deserves.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN LESINSKI, OF MICHIGAN

Madam Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the full Committee on

Post Office and Civil Service and to this subcommittee for affording me an

opportunity to be heard on these longevity bills. While it is rather late in

the session, I believe there is still plenty of time for our committee and the

House to act on this very worthwhile legislation.

My bill, H.R. 8758, is identical to the bill passed by the Senate, S. 1459. I

believe the amendments made by the Senate relating to the rural carriers and

postmasters at fourth-class post offices are very desirable.

As we know, the principle of renumeration for longevity was first introduced

in the postal pay schedules in 1945 through Public Law 134. While the formula

used in prescribing the longevity steps at that time was appropriate, it now

works an injustice for the postal employees as compared to the Classification

Act employees. Postal employees now get longevity increases at the end of

13, 18, and 25 years of service. The increases are $100 each. On the other

13, 18, and 25 years of service. The increases are $100 each. On the other

hand, Classification Act employees receive longevity step increases after 10, 13,

and 16 years of service in the same grade in an amount equal to the regular

within-step increase of a grade.

While it is true that a Classification Act employee does not carry his

longevity credit with him when he is promoted to a higher grade, the majority

of postal employees on the other hand never have the promotion opportunities

that the Classification Act employees have. Most of the postal employees are

In the lower pay levels and almost 70 percent of them are clerks and carriers

in level 4 and have little anticipation of ever reaching a higher grade.

Longevity is supposed to be a reward for faithful service. It is supposed to

be an incentive for work well done. The carrier or clerk in level 4 who goes

to the third longevity step after 25 years of service will receive, under the

present law, an annual increase of $100—$1.80 a pay period or 90 cents a week—

and this after 25 years of faithful service. I hardly believed that this can be

considered much of an incentive.

Madam Chairman, I believe that this legislation will remove an inequity

that has been placed upon the postal employees. Since my bill is identical

with the Senate-passed bill, S. 1459, I urge that your subcommittee take immediate action on the Senate bill so as to expedite the passage of this legislation during this session of the 87th Congress.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN CHESTER E. MERROW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make the following statement in support of legislation to place postal employees on a comparable basis with Federal employees subject to the Classification Act with respect

to longevity increases.

H.R. 6092 and S. 1459 provide nothing more than equal justice for those in

the postal service, most of whom enter and retire at the same grade level;
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 19

namely, grade 4. Under present law classified employees receive longevity increases after 10, 13, and 16 years' service within a given grade; while postal

workers' increases come after 13, 18, and 25 years of service. Classified workers' longevity pay is equal to the regular within-step increase of the grade,

whereas postal employees receive a fixed amount of $100. These bills would

give the postal workers the same longevity pay increases as the classified employees now enjoy.

The comparable ratios of workers under the Classification Act and those in

the postal service who receive longevity pay increases point up the present

inequity between the two Government remuneration systems. Longevity increases are vital to the livelihood of large numbers of postal employees. The

enactment of these bills will serve to correct a pronounced financial inequity,

which is long overdue.

Take letter carriers for instance. No matter how proficient they are they

will probably retire at the top of a grade 4. At the end of his first 6 years

in the service the letter carrier has reached the highest maximum regular withingrade level. Except for longevity, which is far below his previous withingrade increases, he has reached a peak. Then he must wait to complete 13

years of service before he becomes eligible to receive a $100 longevity increase.

The letter carrier is the frontline representative of the U.S. post office. He

meets the public on a day to day basis and becomes an integral part of the

average American community life. Most Americans would be surprised and

saddened to learn of the limited promotion and compensation opportunities of

their letter carriers. They would undoubtedly feel these public servants are

not rewarded according to their just deserts.

There are continual demands for improving our postal service. Greater efficiency in post office operations and more prompt delivery of the mails were

early pledges of the Kennedy administration, as they were in previous administrations. Our post office should be a model business enterprise, because it has

our Nation's prestige and its resources behind it. But we cannot hope for the

best service from our postal employees; nor can we recruit the best qualified

personnel, if we don't offer equitable compensation and sufficient rewards for

the job done. Our postal employees in the lower grades often do thankless but

essential tasks under the most adverse conditions. These loyal, industrious

workers deserve a better deal in return for their efforts. We must not ignore

their inequitable position.

Longevity increases have long been recognized both in the public and private

sectors as rewards for meritorious performance and job know-how. They are

not granted automatically, as some may suppose, but are given for faithful

service in behalf of our Government as incentive awards.

I am sure that the Congress does not intend that the postal workers should

suffer from unfair discrimination in the law pertaining to longevity benefits.

I feel the speedy enactment of the proposed H.R. 6092 legislation is a legislative

must before this session adjourns. It is only common justice that both the

classified and the postal employees should be given equal rights and equal recognition under the law.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN JOSEPH E. KARTH, OF MINNESOTA

Madam Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to make

a statement in support of legislation amending provisions relating to longevity

sten increases for postal workers.

Earlier this session I introduced a bill, H.R. 7631, which would grant postal employees covered under the postal field schedule, postmasters of the fourth class, and rural mail carriers pay increases after 8, 13, 18, and 23 years of service. The great number of the workers which would benefit are the letter carriers and the postal clerks.

Over the years these loyal and faithful postal employees have had inflicted upon them a severe economic injustice through an unfortunate phrasing of law which froze their longevity pay increases to a pitiful $100 a year after 13, 18, and 25

years.

Much has been made in testimony presented to the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service that longevity pay increases and intervals of the postal service should more closely correspond to that of the Federal Government's classified service. Indeed S. 1459 which was passed by the Senate and is now
20 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

before this committee purports to bring that about by granting the amount of

the within-step increases at 10, 13, and 16 years.

While the approach of S. 1459 has the superficial appearance of bringing the

practices of the two Government employee services close together, actually the

comparison is very misleading.

Realistically, the promotional opportunities and the occupational flexibility of

the Federal classified service are foreclosed to workers in the postal service,

the great number of whom as letter carriers and postal clerks are "frozen"

at level 4 with little chance for advancement to supervisory positions. At

present these amount to dead-end jobs—a situation which I deplore and hope

this administration will correct so that the very real advantages of the classified

Federal service are afforded the postal field service.

Such a bad situation is not susceptible to quick and easy solution, I admit.

This realization prompted me to introduce my bill which would grant most

postal employees increases of $200 at the end of 8, 13, 18, and 23 years and help

the great number of postal employees who need and deserve this consideration

to maintain a decent standard of living—and, as important to the postal service,

maintain their morale.

I believe the improvement of longevity pay for postal employees at this time

is a measure of justice which is too long overdue. I do most strongly urge that

your committee recommend the very best possible bill for passage by the House

so that this legislation can be enacted without further delay.

Thank you very much for your courtesy.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSWOMAN LEONOR K. SULLIVAN OF MISSOURI

Charman Granahan and members of the subcommittee, while your hearing

this morning is intended primarily to hear testimony from officials of the

various postal organizations, I appreciate very much your graciousness in permitting me to submit this statement in behalf of S. 1459, and to express my strong

endorsement and support for this legislation.

Some time ago, I conveyed to the chairman of the Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service my interest in this legislation, and I am indeed happy that the

committee subsequently agreed to refer the bill to this subcommittee for hearings

and—I hope—for prompt action. It would be most unfortunate, I believe, if the

Congress should adjourn for this session before we complete action on S. 1459.

The members of the subcommittee are, of course, thoroughly familiar with the

background and details of S. 1459, so I do not have to take up your time discussing facts with which you are already so familiar. But I do want to say

that in our post office in St. Louis there is intense interest in this legislation,

and I have assured the employees that I will back them in their desire to see it

enacted into law. I think it is an eminently fair bill and deserves passage.

Many career Government employees in other agencies find it possible to use

their skills and training for steady advancement into higher grades. If they

reach a plateau of a grade in which they spend many years, then they can look

for longevity increases of from $105 to $260 after 10, 13, and 16 years of service

in the same grade. The career postal employee, on the other hand, often, by

the very nature of his job and of the Post Office structure, finds himself spending his entire Government career in the same grade, with periodic within-grade

Increases until he reaches the top of the grade and then he is stuck there until

he has completed not 10, 13, and 16 years—ad is true for other Government employees—but 13, 18, and 25 years of service, in order to qualify for longevity increases. Then, when he does receive a longevity increase after such long intervals, it is for a flat $100, or less than $2 a week.

Therefore, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I believe

fairness dictates that we extend to the career postal employee the same

longevity procedures and opportunities available to most of the 2 million other

Federal employees under the Classification Act provisions on longevity. This

bill now before you, S. 1459, would accomplish that purpose—and nothing more

than that.

I strongly support it, and urge that you start it on its way through committee

and through the House of Representatives, so that we can vote on it, and pass it,

before adjournment of this session. Thank you.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 21

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN TORBERT H. MACDONALD, OF MASSACHUSETTS

Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words in behalf

of S. 1459 and H.R. 6092 which will amend the law relating to longevity step

increases for postal workers. There is no question in my mind other than that

postal employees should be placed on a comparable basis with employees subject

to the Classification Act whose longevity increases are in the same amount as

their regular periodic within-step increases. As a matter of fact, I have heard no

objection from any other source.

It seems to me to be only fair and equitable that this measure be enacted inasmuch as the Senate has acted favorably on the bill. I just want to add, Mr.

Chairman, that I hope you will report this bill in similar form so that the

House can act upon it before we adjourn.

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN SEYMOUR HALPERN, OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to present my views to your

committee in support of longevity step increases for postal workers.

The workers in our postal service deserve every just consideration for the vital

contribution they make to our everyday lives. Had many of us lived in countries

where the post office organization is a haphazard operation and where the safe

and prompt delivery of letters and packages is indeed an uncertainty, I think we

would be more appreciative of the efforts of American postal workers. Unfortunately, all too often their service to the community is not properly recognized

nor rewarded.

Take the case before this committee today. I am sure that it was not the

intent of Congress when it enacted Public Law 134 in 1945 to discriminate against

the postal workers in this matter of longevity increases. Yet today the postal

workers are at a distinct disadvantage in relation to Federal employees subject

to the Classification Act. Federal employees who are compensated under the

Classification Act receive longevity increases after fixed intervals (after 10, 13,

and 16 years' service) in an amount equal to the regular within step increase of

the grade they occupy. The postal workers, on the other hand, must wait until

they have completed a longer period of service-13, 18, and 25 years—and then

they receive longevity increases at a lower fixed amount of $100.

This difference in compensation schedules is more unfair than it superfically

seems. For one must remember that a great majority of postal workers enter and

retire from the postal service in the same grade—grade 4. For the first 6 years

of his service, a postal clerk or letter carrier receives a periodic increase—$160

if he is a grade 4—every year. Then he reaches a plateau and the only thing he

can look forward to is a longevity increase. He must complete his 13 years of

service before he is eligible for such an increase. Thirty percent of postal workers today receive longevity pay as against only 6 percent among the classified employees. This is true because the classified workers have more opportunities for

promotion to higher grade levels. They do not stay in a grade long enough to

qualify for longevity. But postal workers, many of whom have few changes in

the nature of their task over the years, tend to have very limited promotion opportunities. Because longevity increases are more vital to the livelihood of postal

workers, it is doubly important that the law should offer them equal treatment.

My bill, H.R. 6502, and other similar bills being considered by your committee

seek to rectify the present inequity in longevity increases and to put the postal

workers on a comparable basis with the classified employees. I was happy to cosponsor this legislation to adjust the postal workers' longevity pay and I strongly

support these measures before your committee. Despite the unwarranted opposition of the administration to these bills. I feel we owe it to those in the postal

service to enact this legislation before this congressional session ends. In closing

I wish to commend this committee for the job it has done with these bills. I look

forward to casting an affirmative vote for the passage of this much needed legislation on the floor.
22 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

STATEMENT OF HON. H. W. BRAWLEY, DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, PRESENTED BY HON. B. J. BEARY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF PERSONNEL

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The first witness this morning is Mr. B. J. Beary,

Deputy Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau of Personnel. We are

very happy to have with us this morning Mr. Beary.

Mr. BEARY. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It is my privilege to appear before the committee to present the statement of the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Brawley, who is unable

to be here this morning in person. If it is the desire of the committee,

I can file the statement and give a very brief resum6 of the main basis

for the Department's position on the bill.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Whichever you wish to do.

Mr. BEARY. I would suggest the latter. After that I shall be prepared, in company with Mr. Doyle, the General Counsel, and -Mr.

Block, the Director of the Compensation Division, to answer any questions the committee might have.

(Mr. Brawley's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL H. W. BRAWLEY

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee to state the views of the Post Office

Department on S. 1459, a bill to increase longevity benefits for postal employees.

I believe, Madam Chairman, that you have received the Department's report

on this bill. In his letter to you, on this subject, the Postmaster General stated

the reasons for the Department's opposition to this bill. In brief, these reasons

are as follows:

(1) The bill, in effect, gives an immediate pay increase to many postal

employees, now and in months to come. Raises effective only last year

increased clerk and carrier salaries by 8.5 percent and all other postal

employees by 7.5 percent. (I might add that salaries of clerks and carriers

most directly affected by S. 1459 were by 8.8 percent.)

(2) The bill, in effect, further strengthens the advantage over Classification Act employees already enjoyed by postal employees under the present

longevity system.

I should like at this time to go beyond the statement and examine more fully

the impact of the proposed legislation on our whole pay structure and our program

for personnel administration in the postal service.

The objective of our program of personnel administration for the postal service

is to provide conditions of employment which will result in the attraction, retention, and fair treatment of the best caliber of employees for the various kinds

of employment we have. A program dedicated to this end is naturally concerned

with the pay of employees, not only from the standpoint of meeting the outside

level of wages in order to compete but also from the standpoint of meeting the

just demands of employees themselves. Every person is concerned about the

amount of his paycheck, postal employees not excepted, but employees are concerned with many other facets of their employment, as well. They want a job

environment that will cause them to look forward to each day's work as a

challenge and an inspiration and not as a period of drudgery that must be passed

on the road to retirement. They want a genuine career service—a system which

provides promotional opportunities based on merit. They want recognition—

recognition of their abilities, of their suggestions, of their work performance.

They want a climate which will foster initiative and expression. They want

knowledgeable, trained, able supervisors. They want what is coming to them

by right and not by paternalistic administration—coverage of all legitimate

job incurred expenses, pay when due, overtime when due, time off when due.

How does longevity compensation fit into this prescription of a good personnel

program? To contribute effectively, a system of longevity compensation should

provide satisfactory answers to these questions:
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 23

(1) Will it help the Department to retain able employees? The turnover rate for the Post Office Department is less than that for other Federal agencies and is substantially below that of private industry. In the circumstances, it does not appear that enactment of S. 1459 would cause any reduction in an already low turnover rate.

(2) Does it contribute toward satisfaction of the employee's need for mean- ingful recognition of his faithful service? The present system already con- tains such a recognition feature. Whether the monetary amount of $100 for each of three steps, based on 13, 18, and 25 years of service, is too little or too much is a question of judgment as to the degree of recognition, to be afforded, not as to whether recognition should be given. If the number of different bills proposing a variety of amounts and service requirements is any gage of the state of opinion on this matter, it must be concluded that the only common ingredient is the sole desire for increased monetary benefits.

(3) Does it provide for equitable treatment among employee groups within the Federal Service? The most frequently expressed argument for the proposal

now under consideration is that it will equate the treatment of postal employees and employees under the Classification Act for longevity purposes. The fact is that the bill does no such thing. It gives the surface appearance of producing equality by reducing service requirements to 10, 13, and 16 years for three longevity steps, respectively. It goes even further and provides that the value of each step shall be the same as a within-grade step increase for the employee's level. So far, the icebergs resemble each other. But let's look below the water- line. To qualify for a longevity step, an employee under the Classification Act must have served in his grade for an aggregate period of 10 years. The first longevity step is earned on the basis of 3 years of service in the top step for his position; successive increases are earned on the basis of 3 additional years of servce in the same top step. If a GS employee is promoted to a higher grade, he loses his longevity benefit and must requalify in the higher grade under the same conditions as prevailed in the lower grade. Not so a postal employee. Having

once become eligible for longevity benefits on the basis of total postal service, he continues to be eligible, regardless of his movement within the postal service. S. 1459 does not deal with these significant differences in approaches to the matter of longevity pay. Thus, the systems remain as far apart as ever in terms of basic approach to the matter of longevity compensation.

If it is deemed desirable to equate the two systems, then it does not seem logical to make a superficial adjustment in the postal system which further accentuates the advantages of the postal employee who always carries his longevity benefit with him. It would be far better, I think, to hold where we are until basic reconciliations can be effected as a matter of governmental policy. This subject should invite the attention of this committee or of any group con- stituted to make a review of Federal pay policy.

(4) Are the benefits to the Department and to the work force, as measured in the light of answers to the preceding questions, sufficiently great to warrant the cost? This is the only standard that we, in the Department, can apply to an expenditure of the magnitude provided by the bill—$60 million. The question has answered itself, I think, and I am forced to state frankly that there are

no benefits which the Department would derive from the proposed increase in longevity benefits which would offset this cost.

In order to be wholly fair about this matter, however, let us examine this proposal in the light of the arguments made by proponents of the bill. (1) It is contended that the present system of longevity compensation is the result of legislative oversight. I have no way of delving into the minds of committee members who have dealt with the question of longevity pay for postal employees over the years since 1945 when additional grades first became a

feature of postal pay. Suffice it to say that the concept of "faithful and meri- torious service" in a given position, a principle of compensation very similar

to that underlying the Classification Act longevity system, was abandoned in 1949 when the concept of total postal service was adopted. At that time, lonf gevity compensation was extended to employees, such as postmasters and super- visors, who were paid under a single-rate schedule, and to all employees not previously eligible by reason of top-grade service in automatic grades. As an aside, it should also be pointed out that clerks and carriers in first-class offices who were fortunate enough to be in the top grade for their positions in 1949 have continued through a succession of savings provisions to enjoy compensation

advantages above other employees ever since. In view of the vast amount of attention which has been devoted to this subject, I do not find it possible to believe
I

24 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

that the responsible legislators did not know what they were doing when the

present postal longevity system was being developed.

(2) The argument is made that more postal employees are in dead-end jobs

than under the Classification Act. This is undeniably true because of the large

number of postal employees who are found in clerk and carrier positions in

PFS-4. However, it does not seem to me to follow logically that all postal employees, including those who receive promotions to higher level positions, should

receive the benefits granted GS employees who have remained in their grades.

There are approximately 80,000 positions in the postal field service in levels

above PFS-4. Except for postmaster positions, these positions in levels above

PFS-4 are generally reserved for entry by postal employees on promotion.

Nearly all of them are filled by employees who entered the service as clerks or

carriers. Excluding postmaster position (some 24,000), the number of higher

level positions is more than 20 percent of the number of regular clerks and carriers in PFS-4.

The Department has under consideration now a proposal to provide further

Incentives to city carriers through the establishment of a higher level position

to which many carriers will be able to aspire. While the number of employees

in PFS-4 will continue to be predominant, I think you will agree with me that

there are substantial opportunities for advancement within the postal service.

I want to reinforce this point by stating that under our promotional system,

promotional opportunities are limited almost exclusively to long-service clerks

and carriers, the same group. of employees whose arguments for this bill have

been most appealing.

(3) The argument is made that $100 earned as longevity compensation is a

pittance. The desire for more money is understandable, b'ut I think the committee should keep in mind that an employee in PFS-4, step 7C, with 3 longevities, enjoys better than 5-percent advantage over basic salary. • The proposed

bill would increase this advantage for long-service clerks and carriers, and for

long-service employees in all other positions to approximately 9 percent. This

increase would not be shared in equally by the total work force. In the absence

of sound economic justification for an increase for this group, I could not, in

conscience, support this feature of the bill.

(4) Finally, I want to return to the main argument of the proponents of this

bill; namely, that it simply gives postal employees longevity benefits equivalent

to those enjoyed by their colleagues under the Classification Act. This is true

only for employees who remain in one salary level throughoUt their postal career.

For those who move to higher level positions, the bill gives postal employees

benefits far more liberal than those enjoyed by GS employees, as I have stated

before. Far from providing equal treatment, this bill sets a new milestone in

liberality. If this bill is enacted, the die will be cast insofar as this feature

of compensation is concerned. This committee, or any other group dealing with

the problem of equalizing Federal pay, will have its direction established for it.

The history of pay legislation is that benefits are never reduced. Once a liberal

feature becomes a matter of law, there is no turning back. Thus, to equalize

longevity benefits, pressure would be directed toward raising the GS employees

to the new level established for postal employees. It is obvious, gentlemen, a

similar benefit for GS employees will be far more costly than the $60 million

cost of S. 1459. It is noted, incidentally, that the longevity increases proposed

for rural carriers and postmasters in fourth-class offices under S. 1459, as amended

by the Senate, is at variance with one of the principles advanced by proponents

of the bill; namely, that longevity-step increases should be the same as withingrade increases.

Thank you very much for affording me this opportunity to appear before you on

this matter.

Mr. BEARY. In brief, the Department's position in connection with

S. 1459 and companion legislation is one of opposition to it. The

basis for the opposition is threefold. First, it would distribute an

indirect pay increase in a limited and inequitable fashion to a

minority of our employees 10 months after a general pay increase.

Secondly, it would confuse the purpose between longevity payments

and step increases by equating them. Thirdly, it would create and

accentuate the disparity between the longevity benefits under the
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 25

Classification Act and the Postal Field Service Compensation Act,

rather than bringing- them into closer harmony.

The Department feels in essence that this is in the nature of piecemeal legislation which would not serve to improve personnel management in general, and for those reasons it is necessary to take a position

in opposition to the bill.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Have you completed your statement?

Mr. BEARY. Yes, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. How much additional does the Department consider it would cost to include the Senate amendments in this bill to

cover rural carriers and fourth-class postmasters?

Mr. BEARY. I do not have a breakdown with me based on the Senate

amendments. The cost estimate of the Department is approximately.

$60 million for the whole bill.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The other day when various witnesses appeared

from the organizations, they thought the cost would be about $40 or

$45 million. Possibly your figure of $60.8 million would include the

change made by the Senate amendment.

Mr. BEARY. That would explain it to a very small degree. I believe the positions are much too divergent to be reconciled on the basis

of the Senate changes. I am not an expert on the financial aspects of

it, but I might mention that in the printed hearings before the Senate

committee a letter was included from Assistant Postmaster General

Richard Murphy, dated May 23, which provides the breakdown and

the rationale that was used by the Bureau of Finance in arriving at,

the figure, which was then $59 million. So you see that the $1.8 million attributable to the changes made in the Senate would not go very

far to explain the difference between $40 and $60 million.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Why is there such a difference in the estimates?

Mr. BEARY. I can follow the explanation provided by our Bureau

of Finance in arriving at their figures. I have not personally seen any

breakdown or detailed explanation of the lower figure which has been

provided, although there may be one.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Addabbo, have you questions?

Mr. ADDABBO. No questions.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Beary, I notice on page 7 of your statement, point 4:

Finally, I want to return to the main argument of the proponents of this bill—

namely, that it simply gives postal employees longevity benefits equivalent to

those enjoyed by their colleagues under the Classification Act. This is true

only for employees who remain in one salary level through their postal career.

Would you be able to state how many employees, percentagewise,

remain in the same salary level throughout their career?

Mr. BEARY. I am sorry, Mr. Cunningham, we have no basis at this

point for making an estimate on that. I would say without any hesitation that a great many do remain at the same salary level.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would you tell me the approximate number

of employees who are clerks? It does not have to be exact. I want

to make a point.

Mr. BEARY. I am glad you left that loophole for me. I would say

approximately 250,000, although that may be on the high side.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And letter carriers?

Mr. BEARY. Approximately 150,000.
26 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are 100,000 more clerks than carriers?

Mr. BEARY. Roughly; yes, sir.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Is it not a fact that the carriers have little or

no opportunity to go to a higher level?

Mr. BEARY. It is not correct to say that they have no opportunity.

I would say that in relation to employees in the lower grades in the

Classification Act, they have far fewer opportunities than those

people in the Classification Act. I have no solid figures to support

the feeling that I have in relation to other employees at level 4 in

the postal field service. They have had fewer opportunities in the

past. The Department has been concerned about that in recent

months. It is very much concerned about it. As indicated elsewhere in the prepared statement, efforts are underway to provide

opportunities for letter carriers which considerably exceed what

they have now.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The clerks are the ones who would be most apt

to get a chance at the higher level positions.

Mr. BEARY. That has been correct in the past; yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a matter of act, is it not almost impossible

for a carrier to get into a higher level position?

Mr. BEARY. No; that is not correct. I repeat that their opportunities relatively have been much less, but it is not impossible.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Why are these opportunities for carriers less

than the opportunities for clerks?

Mr. BEARY. There has been a feeling on the part of many postmasters that there are certain jobs for which carriers are not so well

qualified as clerks. We are not satisfied with the feeling the postmasters have had in many cases. We feel that they should be considered equally in terms of their qualifications for higher jobs. The

promotion policy which was announced within the last few months by

the Postmaster General makes clear that it is the policy of the

Department that, whether they are clerks or carriers, they shall be

considered on an equal basis and selected for promotion on the basis

of their ability and their prospect of becoming good supervisors.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you mean that the new policy on the part

of the Post Office Department is that clerks and carriers will now be

treated coequal and will be advanced on the basis of qualifications,

regardless of whether they are clerks or carriers?

Mr. BEARY. Yes, sir; that is the policy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have had quite a few letters from the carriers

telling me that they have been denied the opportunity to bid on jobs in

higher levels. I do not know if I made any friends of the clerks or

not, but I introduced a bill to make sure that they have equal opportunity. Perhaps I ought to study this new policy of yours. If you

have taken that position, perhaps the legislation is not required. I

shall have to go into that.

Mr. BEARY. Of course, it is one thing to have a policy, and it is

another to have a little time to make it work. I have no figures I

could quote you at the moment as to what the effect has been in terms

of the point you make,, but it is distinctly the policy of the Postmaster General that people shall be promoted on the basis of qualifications without any extraneous considerations, whether it be occupational, racial, political, or anything else.
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 27

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I certainly commend the Postmaster General

for that feeling, because I think that is the way it ought to be.

Again referring to the same quotation, you say:

Finally, I want to return to the main argument of the proponents of this bill—

namely, that it simply gives postal employees longevity benefits equivalent to

those enjoyed by their colleagues under the Classification Act.

This is true only for employees who remain in one salary level

throughout their postal career.

If that is the main argument against the legislation, and still, as I

understood you, a sizable number of postal employees do not have

the opportunity to move from one salary level to the other, what

could we do for them in the event this bill does not become law? You

say the main argument is what I just enumerated. You would then

have to admit in a way that people who do not move or who are

prohibited to move or it is impossible for them to move from one

grade to another would be discriminated against.

Mr. BEARY. My own view is that there are a couple of approaches

to that. One is to open up additional opportunities within the service

for people so they are not frozen to the degree that they have been

in the past. As I mentioned, the Post Office Department has been

giving some very active attention to that.

Secondly, I would say a proper avenue would be to consider longevity in relation to the general pay structure and also in relation to

the longevity system under the Classification Act, and to make them

more similar in fact. There are very distinct differences in the concept behind both the field service's longevity system and the Classification Act.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you feel this legislation should be considered at the time the salary bill is considered?

Mr. BEARY. I have not checked this point out in the Department, so

I cannot speak officially for the Department, but it is my thought that

it should be yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would it be your thought that there might be

such a bill that would be considered in the near future?

Mr. BEARY. I know consideration has been given to the matter. I

could not say to what degree it has progressed, because basically this

would be an administration position, and of course there are different

agencies involved in that sort of decision.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank you, Mr. Beary. I have the greatest

regard for the Postmaster General. I believe there is a closed door

so far as carriers being able to advance, and if that can be corrected,

that would be another reason that I would commend the Department

and Mr. Day, because I think that is only reasonable and fair.

Thank you.

Mr. BEARY. Thank you, sir.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I think, Mr. Beary, the reason the organizations

were so anxious to have this, along with a great many Congressmen, is

the very fact that longevity increases are something they deserve for

long and faithful service. The increments are not considered a salary

raise. I feel that way about it myself. I feel something must be

done. Maybe this is the only way it can be done. These men have

served very faithfully over the years. I do not know of a more devoted group of people than the postal employees—the carriers, clerks,
28 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

and other employees—any group who are more willing to do everything they can. I come from a town which has a great many post

offices, and they have their problems too. The people in those offices

are top people. They go in from high school or college and make a

career of it. I think we must make the postal service more attractive

to them and rec ,00nize the sacrifices they have made.

Mr. BEARY. Madam Chairman, your sentiments strike a very responsive chord with the Post Office Department. I can assure you of

that. The Department feels the way you do about it. Unfortunately,

the Department does not believe that this particular legislation is the

right thing to do. It is very conscious of the general problem. It

recognizes not only the importance of the people in the lower pay

ranges but the very urgent necessity to do something about it.

Mrs.,GRANAHAN. I am delighted to hear that. I wish to commend

the Department and the Postmaster General for its attitude. The

gentleman seems to be dedicated to the job. I do not know of a man

with a more retentive mind. He came before us and quoted figures

the first time he appeared before the committee.

Mr. BEARY. He makes the rest of us look a little poor in following

him.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I would not say that. He is a businessman, and

the Post Office Department is probably the greatest business in the

land. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hagan?

Mr. HAGAN. Madam Chairman, I am sorry I just arrived back in

town and have not heard all the testimony, but I will read it in the

record.

Mr. Beary, I would like to ask this question. Would this bill not

correct an injustice against the postal employees as compared with

employees who come under the Classification Act?

Mr. BEARY. Congressman, our position is that it would not correct

an injustice, but would accentuate the difference between the two of

them.

Mr. HAGAN. In what respect, briefly?

Mr. BEARY. One of the main differences between the postal service

longevity and the Classification Act longevity is that postal service

longevity is provided on the basis of total postal service, whereas the

longevity under the Classification Act is provided on the basis of

longevity within a single grade, the length of time within that grade

and the length of time at the top of the grade.

Mr. HAGAN. Is it not true though, that what they receive is not

comparable to the rest of the Federal service?

Mr. BEARY. Under the postal service?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes.

Mr. BEARY. It is not comparable in the amount of the increase

except at the bottom grades of the GS, but it is more than comparable

in terms of the larger number of people who receive longevities. This

would be compounded, if that is the correct word, by the acceleration

of the time period when you get longevities and the increase in the

amount of longevities that would be received. Actually in the supervisory grades the amount of the step increases is greater under the

Postal Field Service Act than under the Classification Act. That is

one of the problems with this particular legislation. While the main
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 29

focus is on the rank and file who have the more limited opportunities,

the increases are far out of proportion for those in the higher level

positions than they would be for the rank and file. Therefore while

the objective is perfectly sound the legislation itself is not acceptable

so far as the Post Office Department is concerned and we do not feel

it is the answer to the problem.

Mr. HAGAN. IS cost the main objection?

Mr. BEARY. It is not the main objection. Obviously it is a consideration, but the main objection is that it is not a piece of legislation

which would contribute to the improvement of the pay scale and the

wage structure of the postal field service.

Mr. UDALL. I regret that I came in late, Madam Chairman. Since

I arrived I have read Mr. Beary's statement and that of Mr. Brawley.

I want to commend Mr. Beary on a very forceful statement. I always

appreciate the frank and effective statements made by the representatives of the Post Office Department.

I can see the arguments which are made against this bill. I had

hoped that the Post Office and Civil Service Committee would bring

out our rate bill before we fold up our tents and go home. I am

still hopeful of that since it is very important. I am hopeful we will

not only have this bill disposed of one way or the other but that the

committee will take some action on the proposed rate increase, which

I know is a matter of perhaps even greater concern to the Post Office

Department than this particular matter.

I have no questions, Madam Chairman.

Mr. ADDABBO. What bothers me most is the figure of $59 million.

I have read the statement of Mr. Murphy before the Senate committee and I have read Mr. Brawley's statement using a figure of $59,-

520,000. Could we possibly get from the Department some actual

breakdown on how they arrive at this $59 million figure?

My own view on this legislation is this: I understand 75 percent

of the postal workers will remain in level 4 as long as they are in the

postal service. I think that would give use more incentive to pass

this legislation in view of the statement of Mr. Brawley on page 2

where he says the turnover rate in the Post Office Department is less

than that of any other Federal agency.

When the men who gave such faithful service to the Post Office

Department come in and ask for such a: small pittance as recognition

for their service to the Post Office and their Government I do not

think too much objection should be raised.

The figures we often get are sound figures but they are at such variation that I think the Department, in justice to us here on the committee, should give us some breakdown as to how they arrive at the $60

million figure.

Mr. BEARY. We would be glad to do so, Congressman. I don't

know what the time availability would be to compile that information.

May I ask whether the breakdown furnished to the Senate committee as reported on pages 20 and 21 of the hearings would suffice for

your purpose? Basically that is the way the current figure has been

arrived at.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Would you elaborate a little bit on how you

arrived at those figures?
30 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. BEARY. There was presented before the Senate committee a

breakdown of how many people are in present longevities A, B, and C.

This cost justification was worked out in relation to that. That appears on page 16 of the Senate hearings. For example, all employees

who are now in longevity A who have had 13 or more years of service,

which totals something over 45,000 in number, would move to longevity

B under the proposed legislation, and all those in longevity B with

18 or more years of service totaling over 61,000 would move to longevity C.

Similar calculations were made for other groups, so that in considering the number of people changed from the old longevity to a new

and higher longevity would get the new amounts provided in this

legislation, namely, the equivalent of one, two, or three step increases.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. How about the fourth class?

Mr. BEARY. That particular provision would be changed because

of the amendment in the Senate bill. I do not have the detail on that.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Beary.

Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no further questions.

Mr. ADDABBO. On page 16, where we have the postal field service

schedule the total of the employees in longevity steps A, B, and C

comes to 162,749. Those would be automatically entitled to the new

increase if this bill is passed. Is that correct?

Mr. BEARY. Yes sir.

Mr. ADDABBO. And the same thing would apply to the 169,920 in

the postal field service schedule on the hourly rate?

Mr. BEARY. That is a cumulative figure. That 169,920 figure is arrived at by taking the first figure, those under the annual rate, 162,000-

plus, and the hourly rate which is 7,000-plus, totaling about 170,000,

to which you then would add the rural carriers, 15,406, and the fourthclass office postmasters 4,874. Thus, there are in excess of 170,000

presently in longevity steps.

Mr. ADDABBO. What would be the step increase under this legislation, then?

Mr. BEARY. It would vary according to the salary level that the

employee is in; $160 for the level 4 rather than $100; if you had a level

4 employee with three longevities, instead of $300 as the aggregate of

the longevities he would have $480.

Mr. ADDABBO. In other words, an additional $180?

Mr. BEARY. That is right.

Mr. ADDABBO. My mathematics may not be good but I would figure

an overall average of about $250 times the 170,000 people who would

be entitled to this increase. That would be way less than the $59 million shown here.

Mr. BEARY. I am possibly no better at the mathematics, but I think

you should remember that the employee who now has one longevity

by virtue of 13 years of service would have two longevities under the

new legislation.

Mr. ADDABBO. Do you have a figure on how many would fall into

that category?

Mr. BEARY. Those presently in longevity A amount to approximately 54,000. That is for 13 years of service, and they would automatically go into longevity B under the proposed legislation.

•
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 31

Mr. ADDABBO. This would take more computing.

Mr. BEARY. It is a difficult process and that is why I am hesitant

about posing as an expert on that feature of it.

Mr. ADDABBO. Can we possibly get a statement from the Bureau of

the Budget and have them break it down for us?

Mrs. CTRANAIIAN. We will now hear from Mr. John W. MacKay,

president•of the National Postal Union.

Mr. MacKay.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MacKAY, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL

POSTAL UNION

Mr. MACKAY. I am John W. MacKay, president of the National

Postal Union. Our national secretary-treasurer, Mr. Silvergleid, appeared at your last meeting and made an oral statement at that time.

We wish permission to submit a written statement in support of the

principles of the longevity bills which you introduced, H.R. 5783 and

H.R. 7631 introduced by Congressman Joseph Karth. We would like

permission to submit written statements for the record.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. That may be done without objection.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MACKAY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POSTAL UNION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John W.

MacKay. As president of the National Postal Union, 509 14th Street NW.,

Washington, D.C., I am privileged to represent approximately 32,000 postal workers affiliated in over 300 local unions in 43 States, the island of Puerto Rico,

and the District of Columbia. Our national secretary-treasurer, David Silver

gleid, accompanies me here on this occasion.

We are grateful, Madam Chairman and members of this subcommittee, for

these hearings on S. 1459 and related bills, to establish an improved system of

longevity salary levels for postal field service employees. The interest evidenced

by the Honorable Kathryn E. Granahan, chairman of this House Post Office

and Civil Service Subcommittee and other members of the committee for their

sponsorship of bills to correct longstanding inequities in this regard we believe

to be highly commendable.

REDUCTION OF AUTOMATIC STEP INCREASES

Now, Madam Chairman, there has been considerable agitation by employee

unions, since the enactment of Public Law 68 in 1955, for a reduction in the

number of automatic step increases in pay. Numerous bills to provide this reduction have been introduced in both Houses since that date and there are

presently several such bills in the House of Representatives. We believe postal

employees acquire the necessary know-how and experience to qualify for topgrade automatic pay in a period of not more than 3 of 4 years.

It should be noted that the bills introduced by Senator Johnston and Congressman Morrison propose to reduce the required waiting period for the first

longevity step increase from 13 to 10 years. We are hopeful the number of

automatic stet) increases will be reduced in the near future to no more than four

or five. We believe a lapse of 3 to 4 years between attaining top automatic

grade and first longevity step increase is sufficient.

With the above facts in mind, we would like to go on record in support of H.R.

7631, introduced by the Honorable Joseph E. Karth. The provisions of this

measure are comparable to a similar proposal introduced by the chairman and

are in direct line with the resolution on this subject adopted at our national

convention in Detroit, Mich., in August 1960.

LONGEVITY INCREASE NOT A PAY RAISE

Bills embodying the principles of longevity pay were first introduced in the

70th Congress in 1928, and in consecutive sessions until enactment of the first
32 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

longevity levels for postal workers in 1945. During April 1940, a joint subcommittee of the 76th Congress, headed by Senator Pat McCarran, held hearings

on S. 3110, a bill to provide Federal and postal employees with longevity pay

levels. S. 3110 stated in part:

"As a reward for continuous service heretofore rendered or to be rendered

hereafter, shall have their base pay fixed by law, increased $100 per annum for

the first 10 years of continuous service, heretofore or hereafter rendered; and

such base pay shall be increased by an additional $100 per annum for each additional 5 years of continuous service heretofore or hereafter rendered. Provided,

That no credit shall be given for service in excess of 30 years."

At these hearings, Senator McCarran made the following statement: "The

application of this principle in the Federal service has been accepted as good

employee practice developing morale, increasing efficiency, and reducing turnover. The principle of longevity increases has a wide application in private

employment, and is being constantly extended in that field. They are a fair

reward for long and faithful years of service and experience."

Subsequently, Public Law 134, enacted in 1945 to take effect on July 1, of

that year, provided for three longevity step increases for postal employees

below the supervisory level to apply as follows: the first longevity step increase

in the amount of $100 per annum at the completion of 3 years satisfactory

service in the top automatic step; the second in the same amount after the completion of 5 additional years of satisfactory service; the third in the same amount

after the completion of 7 additional years of satisfactory service.

The requirement cited above applied until 1950 at which time another law

was enacted providing that all postal employees reaching top automatic step

after May 3, 1950, would receive their longevity step increases after the completion of 13, 18, and 25 years of service. This meant that many employees

who were within reach of the first longevity step increase, had the procedure

set forth in Public Law 134 been continued, now had to wait additional years

for the same benefits.

In other words, the top automatic pay formula was replaced by the years-ofservice approach. Our endorsement of the Karth bill, H.R. 7631, is further

predicated upon the desire to provide some measure of justice for this group of

faithful employees.

We cite this historical background to emphasize a continuing opinion that

longevity step increases are important and should be strictly divorced from the

category of "pay increases." We believe they should be considered strictly as

recognition for long and faithful service.

JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITIONAL LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES

It should be noted that the bill under consideration during 1940, S. 3110,

provided for a maximum of five longevity step increases. Public Law 134,

enacted during 1945, establishing the first longevity levels for postal personnel,

limited the number of such steps to three. Over 15 years have elapsed during

which there has been no increase in this number. In examining all the bills

presently before this subcommittee, it becomes apparent that if the number

of longevity step increases remained at three, an employee could not go beyond

a fixed salary after completing 16 to 20 years of service, unless he secured promotion to a higher level. Post postal workers attain their greatest efficiency

and are of most utility to the service during their 15 to 30 years service

bracket. Therefore, it would appear reasonable and justified to provide at

least four longevity step increases thereby enabling an employee to attain top

longevity pay after 23 years of service.

AMOUNT OF STEP INCREASES

It has 'been indicated that S. 1459 and H.R. 6092 as introduced by the Honorable Olin D. Johnston and James H. Morrison, respectively, would provide

postal personnel with a longevity system similar to that afforded employees

in the classified service. The principle involved here provides longevity increases equivalent to the automatic step increase in that particular grade or

level. We would like to again emphasize at this point, our contention that

longevity increases are not intended as a specific increase in salary. They

have been considered as a reward for many years of service.

The administration takes a strong position that payment for services should

be determined primarily by the responsibilities and duties involved. In this
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 33

Instance, the sole criterion is length of service. On that basis, we advocate all

employees in the Federal service be accorded an identical dollar longevity step

increase. Certainly, an employee in level 1, who has completed 8 or more years

of faithful service, is entitled to the same consideration as far as longevity step

Increases are concerned as an employee in level 15. Under the terms of S. 1459

and H.R. 6092 the first described employee would receive a longevity step increase

of $130 per annum, while the employee in level 15 would receive a longevity step

increase of $365 per annum. We submit there is no justification for such disparity. We respectfully request this subcommittee give the utmost consideration to the flat figure of $200 per annum for each longevity step increase as

proposed in both the Granahan and Karth bills.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, we urge an early and favorable report on

this legislation. We are hopeful expeditious action will be taken on this

proposal by Congress during the 87th session. We again express our sincere

appreciation for your interest in this matter and for the opportunity to present

our views.

Mrs. GRANAIIAN. The next witness is Mr. Everett G. Gibson, legislative director of the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Gibson.

STATEMENT BY EVERETT G. GIBSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF

THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE MOTOR VEHICLE

EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Mr. GIBSON. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Everett G. Gibson, I am the legislative director and secretary of the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, with offices at 412 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today, in support of S. 1459, introduced by the distinguished

Senator and chairman of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service

Committee, Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina. We also appreciate you, Madam Chairman, and the members of this committee, for

holding hearings on this important legislation.

We support S. 1459, as it has already passed the Senate and it is

our sincere hope, that this committee will approve S. 1459 and report

it to the full committee of the House Post Office and Civil Service

Committee, so that it can be enacted during this session of Congress.

Under the provisions of S. 1459, there would be established longevity grades after 10, 13, and 16 years of faithful service, for each postal

employee and provide an increase of each longevity, equal to the employees automatic step increase. It is our opinion, that S. 1459 is

justified and would give the postal field service the same equality

now given to the Federal employees as provided under the Classification Act.

Madam Chairman, on behalf of the organization which I have the

honor of representing, we support S. 1459 and I want to thank you,

Madam Chairman, and the members of this committee for allowing

me to testify and support S. 1459.

We sincerely hope that this committee will approve S. 1459 and

report this important legislation to the full committee, so that it will

be enacted into law, during this 87th session of Congress. T

' 

YE

60;‘1

/S

;7: OCT c 19 61
34 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mrs. GRANAHAN. We will now hear Mr. John McCart, director of

legislation, American Federation of Government Employees.

Mr. McCart.

STATEMENT OF JOHN McCART, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. MCCART. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

in the interest of its members who are employed in the Post Office

Department, the American Federation of Government Employees

indorses S. 1459 and similar House bills under consideration by the

committee today. In addition to the measure introduced in the Senate by Senator Olin D. Johnston, Representatives John Lesinski,

James Morrison, Seymour Halpern, James G. Fulton, and Carl Perkins have sponsored similar bills in the House. To them and to the

committee we desire to express appreciation for the serious attention

being accorded this desirable legislation.

The bills would provide desirable improvements in the postal compensation structure. They would introduce uniformity while reducing the waiting period of an employee who has reached the maximum

pay step of the level to which his position has been assigned. They

would provide uniformity by requiring an even 3-year waiting period

between the pay step 7 and the first longevity step, as well as between

the first and second and the second and third longevity steps.

Presently an employee must wait 6 years after reaching the maximum regular pay step—step 7—before going to the first longevity

step. The waiting period between the first and second longevity

steps is 5 years and between the second and third longevity steps,

7 years. The overall effect of the bills would be to reduce the total

waiting period from completion of ,the seventh level to attainment

of the third longevity step to 9 years from the present 18 years.

An important effect of these bills would be to bring the requirements for advancement to each successive longevity pay step in the

postal pay structure parallel with those established for classified employees in the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended.

Classified employees must serve 3 years at the maximum regular rate

before advancing to the first longevity step of the grade involved.

There are additional 3-year intervals between the first and second and

the second and third longevity steps.

There is this difference between the two pay systems. Advancement

to the next regular pay step or longevity step is automatic in the

postal pay system. In the Classification Act system, it is dependent

upon a positive determination of satisfactory service. The classification system requires an employee to serve 10 years in the present position, or in the present grade and equivalent or higher grades before

qualifying for advancement to the first longevity step. In the postal

pay system, the service requirement for advancement to longevity steps

is total postal service.

In this respect the important difference between the postal pay system and the classification system is that the latter requires an employee

to begin another 10-year service period upon advancing to a higher

classification grade. This automatic characteristic of the postal pay

system is one which the AFGE is hopeful to have introduced into the
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 35

Classification Act system in the near future. Such a requirement

recognizes total Federal service and eliminates the artificial and somewhat unfair requirement that the employee must begin again this 10-

year period of service upon promotion to a higher grade.

It is our belief, Madam Chairman, that the enactment of this legislation will be a factor in making the postal service increasingly attractive as a career. We thank you for the opportunity to present our

views.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The next witness is Mr. Bun Raley, legislative

representative of the National League of Postmasters of the United

States.

Mr. Raley.

STATEMENT OF BUN RALTIY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED

STATES

Mr. RALEY. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my

name is Bun Raley, legislative representative of the National League

of Postmasters of the United States. I am testifying in behalf of the

National League of Postmasters, the oldest postmasters organization

in existence, having faithfully represented the postmasters of the Nation since 1904.

We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to appear before the

committee in support of S. 1459, a bill to liberalize the present longevity

grades. Our organization feels this is a matter of vital importance,

and we appreciate the committee's decision to hold public hearings on

this subject.

The bill under consideration would give postal employees longevity

pay increases in an amount equal to the regular step increases of their

grades as is done in the case of other Federal employees, instead of the

fixed $100 as provided by existing law. This bill would establish three

longevity grades based on 10, 13, and 16 years' service instead of the

present 13, 18, and 25 years of service.

The $100 longevity grade increase as provided in the present law is

a rather meager reward for long years of dedicated public service.

We feel this proposal to give postal employees longevity pay increases

in an amount equal to the regular step increase of their grades, is long

overdue. This legislation will place postal employees on an equal

basis with those in the classified service, who receive longevity increases in an amount equal to their step increases. In our opinion

this discrimination should never have existed.

S. 1459 will reduce the number of years required for longevity grade

promotions and establish uniform periods of 3 years to reach the next

grade. This is a desirable change and we believe it will offer a greater

incentive for competent people to enter the postal service.

Unfortunately this bill does not provide postmasters at offices of the

fourth class with the same benefits extended to other postal employees.

Postmasters at offices of the fourth class are loyal, dedicated people

who serve the small communities with all the services provided by

the larger offices. We, therefore, feel it would be a rank injustice

not to extend these benefits to postmasters in the smaller offices.
36 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

At the present time longevity grade increases for postmasters at

offices of the fourth class are based on 5 percent of their salary on

$100, whichever is the lesser. The basic compensation of postmasters

at fourth-class offices ranges from $495 to $3,573. Therefore, it can be

readily seen these postmasters do not receive adequate compensation

for long years of dedicated public service.

The National League of Postmasters recommend that S. 1459 be

amended to provide that postmasters at offices of the fourth class be

granted longevity grade increases of 10 percent of their basic compensation, or $160, whichever is the lesser, after 10, 13, and 16 years

service.

Postmasters are managers of the postal establishments in the various

towns and cities and the Post Office Department must look to the

postmasters for the smooth and efficient operation of our great postal

service. We, therefore, believe they should be adequately compensated for the services they render.

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this

opportunity of submitting this testimony in support of S. 1459, with

the proposed amendment to include postmasters at offices of the fourth

class. I sincerely hope that the committee reports favorably on this

proposed legislation.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The next witness is Mr. Ashby G. Smith, president of the National Alliance of Postal Employees.

STATEMENT OF ASHBY G. SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ALLIANCE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. SMITH. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I

wish to express my personal appreciation along with that of the

National Alliance of Postal Employees for the consideration you are

lying to this legislation. For purposes of indentification, I am Ashby

. Smith, president of the National Alliance of Postal Employees,

with offices at 1644 11 Street, NW., Washington, D.C. The organization which I am privileged to represent, numbers approximately

20,000 members in 117 branches throughout the United States. They

share with me the sense of importance which attaches to this measure..

I might begin by quoting Mr. Elmer Statts, speaking for the Bureau of the Budget in opposition to the pay proposals of 1960 in

which he testified before the full committee of this body the following:

Beginning in 1954, the President and other administration spokesmen have

repeatedly advocated the principle, that Federal career salary rates should be

generally comparable with private enterprise pay levels. A common conclusion

of all the pay studies I have mentioned is that Federal pay should be reasonably

comparable with pay in private enterprise for similar work. We urge your

committee to accept this principle.

With the comments of the chairman of the Post Office and Civil

Service Committee of the other body in mind upon his introduction

of H.R. 5783, I express the hope that Mr. Statts and the Bureau of

the Budget will extend the principle to comparability of wage rates

within the Federal service as well.

I think this is important. This bill, it seems to me, points to one

of the great anomalies of the pay system. For while heavy emphasis

is laid upon this comparability, and indeed, the excess of Federal
LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES 37

wage rates over that of private industry, statistical evidence refuted

such claims.'

Allow me to draw your attention to the wage board in this regard.

Here, we have the statutory requirement that area wages must be

comparable. But the evident points to the regressive tend within

the context of the Federal Government.

Average pay 1950 1955 1958 1959

Post Office $3, 488 $4, 197 $4, 809 $4, 837

Wage board 3,133 4,111 4,894 5,195

The impact of this legislation, presumably, can be the key that

unlocks the secret. For the averages could be drawn closer while not

restoring completely the original relationship balance.

Mr. Maurice Stans, the former Director of the Bureau of the Budget

presented to the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee a most

revealing report on the original report of the Cordiner and the Young

committee on the subject of Federal pay structure. On page 48, the

report pointed to the inadequacy of the pay structure with this cogent

reference to the postal field service schedule.

In the PFS maximum rates, including longevity, compared with minimum rates

in the same grades vary from 31 percent (grade 1) to 20 (grade 2). * * * By

contrast industry practices generally provide for much wider ranges than the

above from minimum to maximum in a grade and for increasingly larger ranges

as one moves from lower to higher salaries. The Cordiner committee report, for

instance, revealed a median range of 35 to 39 percent at the $5,000 per year level

and a median range of 40 to 44 percent at the $10,000 level 10.

With this happy circumstance prevailing in industry, I refer now to

the table presented in the same report shown on page 75.

Here the spread of 11 percent in longevity alone at level 1 which shows a total

spread of only 31.3 from the initial to the highest longevity grade, narrows to a

7.02 percent spread at the nearest $5,000 level which happens to be the then

maximum of level 6. The current equivalent is now step 4, level 5.

I cite the above-mentioned report, with what I hope is groundless

expectation of administration disapproval.

However, the experience with the Classification Act of 1949 is so

clear and affirmative that we may well obtain the administration's

approval and support of this measure.

The postal field service longevity plan has been effective since 1945

with some modification since then. One hundred dollars per longevity

step represents the flat rate limitation in the PFS schedule. The

Classification Act of 1949 provides, as Chairman Johnston stated in

the other body in his introduction of the measure, for a longevity

increase equal to the step increase in levels in which the employees

are assigned.

This approach to the plight of the long term employees for whom

no promotional opportunities exist cannot be questioned on the basis

of merit. In his 'Review of Ten First Five Years of Operation of the

Longevity Pay Plan" of the "Classification Act" of 1949, as amended,

1 Statistical abstract U.S. Department of Commerce, p. 541: "A primary purpose of any

pay system is to contribute substantially to the recruitment, retentiary and motivation

of a workforce adequate in numberr and quality."
38 LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Ismar Baruch sets forth some very cogent points in support of that

program says:

All employees should be paid according to what they do; how well they do it

and their length of service.

He further states that the longevity scheme encourages and rewards

meritorious services; it provides an incentive for continuity of service.

(This, I might add, presents the countervailing emphasis to early

retirement which, we supported just a few days ago). Continuing

with Mr. Baruch, the results of his study further reveals that turnover reduced, frozen salaries are offset and some impact is made on

"dead-end" job situations.

All of these job limitation characteristics, Madam Chairman, apply

almost totally to the postal service. Although some promotion opportunities do exist, their relation to the main body of employees is minor.

Mr. Baruch states in his fifth anniversary study of the longevity plan

of the Classification Act of 1949 that—

At the half way mark of the projected maximum annual cost of $12 or $13

million originally expected in 1960, it cost in 1954 about $3,500,000 less than one

third of the estimate. This cost is less than one tenth of 1 percent of the

aggregate Classification Act payroll of about $4,150 million on June 30, 1954.

I wish to point out that certain departmental jobs of the postal service are covered by the Classification Act. Therefore, we find this

division of principle within the agency.

Madam Chairman, I, and the organization which I am privileged to

represent, wish you to know how appreciative we are for the consideration which you have shown us in treating with this measure.

May I at the same time express our appreciation for the concern of the

chairman of this committee, Congressman Granahan, in sponsoring

this measure. I express the hope that you will give this proposal

your approval.

Thank you.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The committee will adjourn at this time and go

into executive session.

(Whereupon, Tuesday, September 5, 1961, the subcommittee

adjourned.)

0
I
'

14,

IrTAN, 0:4