The Washington herald., 1921-01-05
CLAIMS LEHLBACH
BILL FOR FEDERAL
CLERKS TOO RIGID
Substitute Measure |.
Urged by Classifers
Before House.

Opposition in Congress to the
Lehlbach reclassification bill was
seen yesterday when Representative
Louis W. Fairfield, OF Indiana, in
troduced in the House the bill
recommended in the report of the
Joint Commission on Reclassifica-
tion, and issued a statement attack
ing many features of the Lehlbach
plan. .-..-.-
Fairfield said he introduced the
commission bill so that the Commit
tee on Reform in the Civil Service,
of which he is a member, would
have the information it contained
for consideration. He praised the
work of the commission and said
that its report revealed existing
conditions in the government serv-
ice and not what ought to be.
No amount of Juggling" he said,
will ever take away the fact that
these government positions exist
and that men and women are filling
them with certain definite qualifica-
tiOns."
Attacks Rigidity of Bill.
Fairfield attacked the rigidity Of
the proposed LehlbaCh bill and de-
clared that if passed, classification
in the government service could
only be changed by act of Congress.
The proposed classification will
be a static, rigid scheme which can
not meet situations arising from
changes in organization" he said.
Employees assigned to other du-
ties different from those indicated
by their payroll title should be re-
classified currently and given an ap-
propriate title. Congress ought at
all times to know definitely what
it is appropriating its money for.
One of the striking points brought
out in the ReClassiicatioR Commits
siOns report is the fact that titles
at present are often most mislead-
ing. The present situation cannot
but be made worse with the adop-
tiOn of the Lehlback bill, and Con-
gress will be as ill-advised as be-
fore.
Fixes Compensation.
The enactment into law of the
classification itself is further unde-
sirable in that it fixes compensation
rates with no provision for their
amendment.
zone of the striking disclosures
made by the ReClassifcation Com
mission was the present injustice
in salaries paid for the same kind
of work. The proposed plan by
which department heads will alIo-
cate positions in their organizations
to the classes or grades cannot se-
cure the uniformity which is one
of the objects of classification. Such
Uniformity could be obtained through
large supervising staff working
under the Secretary of the Treasury,
but there is no provision for such
staff, to say nothing of the diff
Guilty and expense of building it up.
Chance for Fnvoritism.
After a department head has
made the ALLEGATION he is pretty
sure to defend it regardless of UNI
fOrmity, largely because he has
made it. 1t is unnecessary to COM
ment on the opportunity for fav-
Oritism which is thus given the de-
partment head, and the injustice
which may be the lot of the e.
plOye who does not have the pull
of his more fortunate fellows.
The bill gives to the Secretary
of the Treasury an impossible task
by requiring him to report a classi-
tication of the field service at the
beginning of the first session of
Congress after March 4, 1921. This
task would be impossible even If
Congress should not meet until De-
cember, because of the physical
labor involved in gathering and
compiling information, setting up
Specifications and working out com
pensation rates, not to mention the
ALLEGATION of positions called for.
Fails to simplify.
1T is not detailed enough to Sc
cure uniformity in the ALLEGATION Of
positions or to serve for seIective
purposes. 1t contains many things
not needed for budget purposes and
Of no use in civil service admins
tEation. 1t fails to simplify, even
in form, a complex employment and
budgetary- matter. Whatever uses
the classification is intended for il
CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO.