Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-07
Annuitants Ask for
More Equitable Basis
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor of The Star:
We. the retired civil service employees,
hear it said quits often that the Presi-
dent is only interested in the highly
paid employees. This am sure is not
true. The President has called Mr..
Lehlbach and others in to let them
know that he is interested in getting a
retirement law fair to all; generous to
the low-salaried employees, q minimum
that will not be an insult, but real
help to them in their last days, what
ever the cost to the Government, and
to those employees receiving nlgner sal
aries, an amount that the deductlons
from their basic salaries VIII pay 1or.
No one should object to this.
From 1918 to 1917 the cost OF living
had advanced so that Congress had
seen the necessity for a higher wage.
They did raise their own and al OF the
higher paid employees, ana Oils were
constantly before Congress TO pass q
Redistribution bill to raise the basic
pay of the whole classified c1vl service:
When in 1917 we entered the World
War, and because of the press Tor war
legislation, there was not time to prop
erly consider Redistribution. Congress
passed what is enormously called
bonus bill, authorizing the payment OF
$240 per annum to all of the classiflec
employees of the Government IN addi-
ton to the basic pay provided by law.
This act was repeated year after year
for seven years, and then the WEIGH
Reconsideration law was passed, 1ncreas-
ing the pay of all civil service employees
from $500 to $4,000.
In the meantime a bill had been
passed called the retirement act. This
law provided that retirement be calcu-
lated on the basic salary of the employe
and expressly excluded the $24O from
the basic salary, placing the retirement
OF all employees back to the basic pay
OF more than so years ago, which at the
time of its passage was thought to be
fair living wage.
What should have been done was to
base the retirements on the long
delayed civil service Redistribution law
or present basic pay. This would have
not altogether fair to the retired emf
ployes, as they had been living for IL
years on rising market, which in 1917
reached 100 per cent advance over
prices of 1913 and continued at this
level for seven years, when the pur-
chasing value of the salaries received
by the Government workers was re-
duced so per cent. In all fairness, this
amount should have been allowed as
back pay.
What we, the retired employees, ask Is
justice. We ask that our retirement
allowances be based on the present basic
pay allowed for the same positions from
which we were retired.
What the already retired employe
complains of is that in computing his
retirement allowance an amount OF
$240 per year. which for seven years
was considered necessary and was pro-
yided for his support, should have been
disregarded and no subsequent effort
made to increase his allowance to cor
respond to the allowance which will be
provided to the employe Of the same
class, the basic salary of which, through
the experience and effort Of the past
few years, has in some cases been
doubled.
Congress in 1926 passed the police
and f1remen's retirement bill for the
District of Columbia, which rightly pro-
videS for the widows and orphans OF
deceased police and firemen. This law
further provides as follows: III the
basic salary of the rank to which re.
tirant belonged is increased after his
retirement, he Is entitled to q CORE
spending increase in his pension" This
after the police and f1remen's pay hac
been raised to the present basic pay. 3
The same Congress in 1926 amended
the retirement law for the civil service
employees of the Government as follows:
1.-THE term basic salary, pay or COM
pensation,' whenever used in this act.
shall be so construed as to exclude from
the operation of this act all bonuses,
allowances, overtime pay or salary, pay
or compensation given in addition to
the base pay of the position as f1xed by
law or regulation"
In view of the fact that the cost of
living has not decreased. the above pro-
vision seems unjust In the extreme.
especially when contrastsd with the
more liberal provision as quoted above
for the benefit of retired employees of
the Police and Fire Departments.
A. M. PROCTOR.