The Washington times., 1911-01-09

cred until now many employees receive
but 5000, some even as low ais S42O per
annum. An average of less than 500
per annum! What kind of service can
be expected under such conditions?
| The advance in the salaries of higher
officials all along the line and in other
branches Of service has frequently been
| adverted to; notably that of members
of Congress with a so per cent increase.
In this connection it has been proposed
that a % per cent increase to all civil
service employees up to and including
| those receiving $500 would be rea-
sonable. One point seems to have been
overlooked. All congressman received
like salary. and one that would place
the recipients in considerable comfort,
If not comparative affluence. What of
the clerks? Their salaries range from
minimum of s420, with a vast majority
| below $500.
What, then. would be the effect OF
straight increase of 25 per cent? This
great army OF workers, now in real
poverty, would not be lifted out of
poverty row.
For example: The $4e0, $500, and $40
clerks would receive $525. $50, and $500,
them out of actual poverty.
On the other hapd, those now receiv-
ing $500. 5000. $3.50, and $500 would
| be advanced to $3.50, $500. $2,Sl2 and
$3,12 Increases larger than the total
| salary of the lowest grade. This 25 per
cent increase in the higher salaries
would in many instances put them above
the salaries of those in authority over
the recipients thereof, unless the in
crease were carried beyond the $500
mark.
For example, the head of an office
may now receive $500 and one of his
assistants $3.50 or $500, by no means
improbable contingency. An increase OF
25 per cent in the salaries of those as
sistants would, therefore, place them in
better paid position than the chief Of
their office. An impossible situation!
Now for a suggestion that l do not
find to have been made: We see that
fifty-seven years ago the minimum was
81 200. Why not restore that minimum,
or at any rate one of $1,000? Lump a
few OF the lower grades and advance
them collectively to a minimum OF
81, 80; bunch the next few grades and
advance them to sl,200; then apply
constantly decreasing percentage OF in
crement as the remaining grades of
salaries advanced.
This would remove the majority OF
the clerks from poverty, would affOrd
a material increase to those of higher
salaries, and would avoid the absurd
contingency just mentioned of the as
sistant receiving more than his chief.
Perhaps the most desirable plan
would be to create a substantially in
creased minimum, such as $1,000 or
$1,000 and a straight raise of 25 per
cent for all above that minimum. ex-
cept chiefs of bureaus or divisions.
Still another point: In several de-
partments there are employees who
cannot be classed as clerks. and who.
although civil service appointees, are
not paid on the same basis as clerks.
L refer to those who follow technical
or scientific pursuits. There are many
such. These are generally paid out of
the lump appropriations covering the
specific branch of work or Office in
which they are employed. They are not
usually subject to the same general
rules for promotion that governs clerks.
Reference Is made only to clerks in
the discussion. Are employees of the
class above mentioned included? If not,
provision should be made to include
them.
Some OF them, although they have had
to spend many years in acquiring tech
nical training and expert scientific
knowledge, receive no better pay than
medium grade clerkship. Especially
is this true of many who entered the
service several years ago. 1t is now
found impossible to secure the services
of such men at these low entrance sal
aries, therefore 1t has been necessary
to offer substantially increased entrance
salaries to gain new men.
This results in the anomaly that men
who have served faithfully several
years now receive less pay than new
appointees who are no better prepared
than the former were when they en-
tered the service.
Other points in connection with the
salary question could be raised. but I