Evening star., 1933-05-26
Peculiarities of Navy
Department Economies

To the Editor Of The Star:
have q complaint to make against
President Roosevelt and his new deal. a
complaint which is just one.
1t Is this: The small wage Garner,
especially the Federal employe, has
borne the brunt Of the blow when the
economy ak fell and will continue to
do SO If the past Is criterion of what
is to come.
Let's look into the Navy Department.
where the first large dismissal of clerks
is taking place in the interest Of econ
omy. Now that we're in the Navy De-
partment, let's pick out the Bureau of
Navigation, for there We know just
what is happening. First, on March 4.
1888. the personnel in this Bureau were
already having 1-3 per cent deducted
from their base pay. Second, it was
very soon after March 4 that we re-
ceived an additional 6 2-3 per cent cut
for the low-paid clerks as well as the
highest paid people The underpaid
person was not favored with a graded
pay slash, such as 10 per cent deducted
on salaries of 81 l.260 per annum and
less. IL per cent for salaries of 81 500
and less and so on, thus taking the
most off of salaries where it would hurt
less.
The third reconsideration for the
low-paid clerk was and Is very appar-
ent in the dismissal Of 200 clerks in
the Navy Department and this is a
matter Of my knowledge and is to be
found in the records and pay rolls as
a 6iSnliSSQ1S N nf
CATION are concerned. As rule the
people dismissed in this bureau were
married and single people in Grades l
and 2 c. A. F.; this means people
earning between 81 ,260 and ST 900 are
those slatsd to 60 and it means more
people must be fired because of the fact
that 1t Is the loWer-paid people who
are being dismissed.
People who are married and both
employed in the Navy Department with
salaries amounting to $4,000 a year are
allowed to stay in spite of the fact that
the economy law intended that where
both wife and husband were in the
government one should be forced to
resign.
The intent Of the law is certainly be-
ing violated, but who has the power
to see that 1t is enforced? There has
been no action In this direction, so we
see a new racket In our once splendid
civil service. The powers in Bureau
are keeping their special friends, in
different to the inhumanity in the dis
miSsalS they cause.
l believe much money can be saved
in running the Government establish
ments, but as 1t Is now being done it is
lnhuman and uneconomical, for the
nR0nla wi hlt
pay and, although they could be spared
many more times than a lower-paid
clerk. they are the ones who do the
firing and hiring and they are not 60
ing to fire themselves.
I commend the Civil Service Com.
mission for their attitude toward the
Navy Department in the matter of
wholesale diSmissals, but I condemn
Congress for failing to see that their
constituents have not received fair
deal, to which they are justly entitled
As an example of what can go on
unnoticed, recall reading in a Wash
ington local paper several weeks ago
an article in which a Woman-Who is
being dismissed from the Department
as one of the 200 to 60 June L
charged that a man in her Office had
been securing examination questions
and selling them to officers Of the U.
S. Navy so that they could win promo
tionS TO the next higher rating. And
the man, she says. has been making
about $4,000 year doing it.. And 1t
seems to be common knowledge in the
bureau where l work that this Is based
on more than revenge and also 1t is
quite apparent who the man is
w. A. COPELAND.