The Washington times., 1937-04-26
By ]. EARLE MOSER

Declaring he Is frankly ouG o4
sympathy with the Civil Service
retirement lobby" because it is
controlled by a few with Interior
motives" and benefits compare
lively few employees, H. K. Long,
of the Navy Yard. has compiled an
interesting article on the subject.
Mr.. Long, who is a lawyer as
well as a machiniSt at the South
east institution, also admits that
he hopes to create an issue
through his article, with counter
debate. He says inquiry has shown
MANY Government folk i'll advised
on retirement provisions, and that
the $4,000 Government employees
in Washington need the benefit
of the pros as well as the cons.
His article follows.
Only Civil Service employees who
have not less than Is years OF serV-
ice. and are not less than As, have
any right to retirement for serv-
ice. For instance, an employe who
enters Civil Service at the age OF
81 and serves continuously for 23
years and II months, and is then
separated from the service 1nVol-
UNFAIRLY without cause, has no
right to any deferred annuity.
His only right is to have refund
ed to him all the money he has
paid into the retirement fund, to-
gether with interest at 4 per cent
compounded annually.
Similarly, an employe who en-
tiers Civil Service at the age OF so
and serves continuously for IA
years and II months. until he is
ga years and II months old. and
is then separated from the service
involuntarily and ithout cause,
has no right to any deferred an
nuity. This is true even though
the retirement age for his group
is IS wears, and with only one more
month in the service he would
have been entitled to a life an
nuity.
Conditions Cited
Section 7 of the Civil Service
retirement act imposes two con-
ditions precedent to any right to
retirement for service, namely:
An employee must have not less
than IS years Of service and be
not less than As years OF age. 1t IS
not enough for a person to have
more than IS years of service, or
be more than As, whether the
age limits of his class are 81, IS
or 10 years. He must have both
service and age. Otherwise merely
a refund.
Spend it Of necessity. squander
or dissipate it as he may, in the
years of his superannuatlon be-
come dependent upon younger or
more fortunate relatives, become
a public charge, or be doomed to
utter destitution-is this fair to
the employe? Is justice made OF
such things? Is it in the public
interest? Is it in keeping with
sound economy?
These are questions I do not
attempt to answer merely accord
ing to the precepts of my own
meager dictates of justice and
reason. But I respectfully cite
the Social Security act, approved
August IA, 1885, wherein 1t is
provided by Section 202 that every
qualified individual" shall be en-
titled to monthly paid old-age ben
efits, and Section 210, providing
that 1.-The term qualified individ-
uals" means any individual with
respect to whom it appears to the
satisfaction of the board that:
1. He is at least IS years of age; and
2. The total amount Of wages paid
after december 81, 1885, and before
he attained the age OF IS, was not
less than $4,000. and
8. Wages were paid to him, with re-
spect to employment on some live days
after December 81. 1895, and before he
attained the age of 65. each day being
in a different calendar year"
Under the social security act a
youth Of tender years, IS for in
stance, may become employed dur
ing his school and college vaca-
lions, working some time in each
of the next five years, whether
that time be one day, one week,
one month or six months. in any
industry coming within the scope
of the act. And if his total earn
ings during those five years
amount to $4,000 or more, he may
then at the age of 20, become EN-.
ployed in agriculture or some other
vocation exempt from the act, en-
gage in business on his own &C
count, or remain permanently I'M
employed for the next Is years
and still be entitled to an old age
benefit.
It is unnecessary to further
elaborate upon the inconsistency
of the two acts, or, might more
properly say, the discrimination
against those Civil Service en-
ployes who are less than As and
those who while more than As
have less than Is years of service.
The inconsistency and the hazard.
GUS consequences are apparent.
think it can be fairly said that
the social security act expressed
an Administrative policy. This be-
ing later act than the Civil Serv-
ice retirement act, would not The
same policy or social philosophy
dictate that the retirement act
be amended so as to bring it into
accord with the liberal term of
qualified individual" as defined
in the security legislation? Will
Congress deny the Federal Civil
Service employees the same rights,
rariNilanas and ir1ono11raitiaS Il ssaks