Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-09

in order to reach the present retirement
age of 70 years, and must necessarily
contribute considerably more to the re-
tirement fund than those who enter at
q later age and serve for less period.
az. Of the 2,574 employees retired dur
ing the last fiscal year $40 were retired
for partial or total disability. Why not
save the Government as well as the en-
ployes the expense of these examinations
every year by permitting them to retire
at any time between the age Of so and
20 years at their option.
"8. For the last so years the salaries
Of Government employees have been In
families, and in almost every instance
those 70 years of age and over who
have been retired are suffering for the
bare necessities of life.
20. In this day and age an old man
cannot possibly live and support his
wife on 500 per month tthe sum pro-
posed in the Dale bilD, and only about
5000 out of the 1888 would receive
that amount.
40. During the fiscal year ending
June 80, 1929, there we're ,764 employees
retired on account of age GO years and
over) and 1895 were dropped from the
rolls on account of death. Not many
live over four years after being retired.
III. Optional retirement at SO years
of age Is in operation in Great Britain.
France and many other countries and
in the municipal governments OF New
York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Fran
cisco, Pittsburgh. Minneapolis, Boston
and Baltimore DY. Hubert Work when
Secretary of the Interior in 1927 advo-
Gated this change. The Civil Service
Commission also stresses the fact that
this change should be made. Let us
consider our employees, as well as our
Government and make this change
without further delay"
Oversight" Pointed Out.
The attention of Senator Dale and
Representative Lehlbach has been called
to what is designated a bad over
sight" in the Dale-Lehlbach bill by
c. B. Hemingway. Whether any at.
tempt will be made to amend the bill
along the lines suggested by Mr.. Hem
ingWay is problematical at this time.
Here is his letter:
"On behalf Of about 10000 lowest
paid and lower-paid Federal employe
annuitants who are in greatest need
Of increased annuity and who would
receive the least increase under your
proposed amendment OF the retirement
act Gin thousands of cases increase so
trivial as to afford no relief, and be-
a bad oversight in that amendment,
call your attention to the fact that
upon the Redistribution of salaries
July |, 1924, in fixing the new basic
salaries the bonus of $240 year was
added to the basic salaries previously
paid.
we're increased to LAO, and the $l,4OO
salaries became 81 $50 tor $40 more
AT
the retired Federal employe whose an
nuities are computed on pay increased
by Redistribution at least $3.50 year
more annuity Gin some cases $210
wear nore) than they would otherwise
have received or than that paid TO those
retired whose annuities are computed
on the basis of salaries paid prior to
Redistribution. Surely that is not fair
or reasonable.
TO rectify this grave fault in your
proposed amendment the word
bonuses should be stricken out where
it is stated that. bonuses shall not be
included in computing annuities, and
a clause should be added providing that
basic salary and bonus paid prior to
Redistribution shall be included in
computing annuities.
THE failure to include the bonus i'm
posed cruel hardship on the loWest-paid
to one, 10 average SIS go, 127 average
$3.50, 436 average $2083, 1927 average
S29.16, 1885 average $3.50 Think
what it means! These people are old
and helpless. Under your proposed
amendment the increases in these cases
would be SO cents, 10 cents, $1.46, So. go,
1854, S468. Including the bonus would
give $3.50 to SIS more. What a god
send that would be to them
ITO increase 81 900 annuities to 81, 200
is proper, but it would be outrageous
to do that and leave thousands whose
need is greatest with annuities so small
that they must starve or suffer unless
cared for by others.
1T may cost a million dollars a year
more to include the bonus in computing
annuities, but that would diminish
rapidly and cease in few years, and
it would help where help is needed most
Inasmuch as there is now over $780,
900 900 in the retirement fund, and it
is increasing at the rate of over $780,
900 900 a year, there is no reason why
several millions more a year should
not be paid to the annuitants. Then,
if later found necessary, the deduction
from pay for the retirement fund could
be increased to or even 5 per cent.
No additional cost to the Government
Is involved"
Q