Evening star., 1948-04-24
Editorial on Home Rule

To the Editor OF The Star:
This Bill Should Be Passed" your regent
editorial indorsing the revised bill for District
Home Rule, deserves to be read by every Dis
trict resident interested in the future of this
community. tq- f
AS your editorial so convincingly points out
the bill, as redrafted, lays directly before the
people of Washington the question of whether
they approve "a plan for local government
that will make it responsive to the will of the
voting citizens who are to be governed by it,
while retaining &. the supreme control Of
the Federal city by Congress" If Congress
permits the people of Washington to answer
this question, 7 firmly believe there can be but
one ansWer-a resounding eyes"
From the introduction of the original
Auchincloss bill, The Star through its edi-
torial columns has made clear its adherence
to the principle of local self-government, but
has reserved judgment on the bill itself pend
ing decision on several notifications urged
by The Star and others, including the pro-
vision for a referendum.
The complete support which The Star now
has given to the revised measure is striking
evidence Of the willingness of the craftsmen
OF the bill to perfect the Home Rule plan by
incorporating constructive suggestions from
those most vitally affected-the residents of
the District.
We the disfranchised second class citizens"
of Washington, now face, as never before, the
challenging prospect of real participation in
our government. AS your editorial urged, H. r.
6627 should be passed by Congress without
delay. CHARLES G. GLOVER III.
Further Argument for Postal Workers
To the Editor of The Star:
Nv odif al ",
H. entitled Treat All Employees Alike" in
which criticism was leveled at congressional
proposals to grant postal employees larger
individual annual wage raise than would be
given other Government workers.
On the face of the basis established by the
writer of the editorial it would appear that he
had drawn logical conclusion-if it were read
about anyone other than postal employe,
other Government workers or members of con-
gressional committees dealing with post office
| matters.
But it is apparent that the writer of the
editorial was not acquainted with certain facts
regarding employment conditions of postal en-
ployes and had not deliberated on distinctions
in the type and extent of service rendered by
the Post Office. The editorial writer was guilty
of number of sins of omission. He failed to
point out that the postal worker is in the field
service, symbolized by the man in gray who
brings your daily mail, gets Is days annual
leave and 10 days sick leave each year as con-
trasted with Government workers for other
Federal agencies who get 26 days annual leave
and IS days sick leave. The total for the postal
worker-both annual leave and sick leave-is Is
days whereas any other Government worker is
allowed leave of Al days.
The above fact is most important when you
consider that all leave can be taken at one time
if the worker becomes seriously i'll. Without
losing any pay, a Government worker other
than postal employe, would receive full COM
pensation for Al days of illness. The postal en-
ploye would receive his full pay only for rs days.
This poses a question: Who would be more
susceptible to illness-the worker in a we'll
heated and ventilated Office in winter and air.
conditioned in summer or the mail man who
must brave the elements at all times of the
year? In general, certainly the man who must
carry pack on his back on the street during
the worst weather conditions is laying himself
open to illness more than is the Office worker.
From the above it should be deduced that the
postal worker should be given at least the same
consideration as other Government employees
on matters of sick and annual leave. Equal
treatment here would be welcomed by the
postal worker incidentally, it has been esti-
mated that the variable sick and annual leave