Evening star., 1953-02-26
'Fire-und-Rehire Racket


"Fire-and- -Rehire Racket" in your issue
Of February 9. While do not always
agree with your views, have become
accustomed over the years to bal
anced attitude and generally accu-
rate statement of facts in The Stars
columns. Thus I cannot agree with
your inaccurate and incorporate edi-
torial. agree that the actions Of the
Office Of Rent Sterilization were indis-
Greet, but cannot agree Gin your
wordS) that it was a racket" a
scheme" whose result was that many
thousands of dollars may have been lost
to the Treasury that apparently can
not be recovered"
Please remember that leave is now
a right, not privilege. So much of a
right, that, as you know, employees get
paid in cash for unused leave when
they are separated.
It is also helpful to keep in mind
the fact that "leave," in it's barest es-
sential, Is payment without rendering
services. Every time a person stays
away during his duty hours, and thus
> uses eight hours of his earned leave, he
is getting paid without having had to
work. This being so, what earthly diff
ference does it make whether a person
stays on the rolls, and stays away from
his place of duty for the full amount
of his earned leave, on the one hand
(thus getting paid without rendering
services) or, on the other hand, gets
paid in a lump sum for the same
amount Of accumulated leave? The
employe, having earned it, is entitled
to specific amount for getting paid
without working" so what difference
does it make how he gets it, while on
the rolls or off the rolls?
II the employees stay on the rolls and
take their leave, they will also get pay
without rendering services and would
get 1t at the higher scale of today,
Moreover. some Of them have undoubt-
edly been promoted to higher grade
position or have received "within-grade
advancements." If they take their
leave now Cor get paid it in lump sum-
1t will not be at the rates of pay they
received when the leave was earned,
but at the rates of pay they now receive.
am exercised about this matter be-
cause for some years we have been in
a period Of disparagement of the serv-
ices OF Federal employees AS a career
employe Of 18 years of service, I know
OF things which can be improved, but I
have been impressed many times with
the hard work and integrity of Federal
employees.
Federal Employe.
There can be no question of the
rightness of your editorial condemning
the highly improper fire-and-rehire
racket. On the other hand, the effect
OF the use-it-or-loSe-it leave require
ment is in many cases no less uncon-
scionable.
On Nov. 3. 1850, the Navy transport
U. S. S. Gen. D. I. Sultan sailed
from San Francisco on voyage which
included participation in the evacua-
tion from Hungnam, Korea, of the
1st Marine Division and other U. N.
forces. When the vessel was two days
out of San Francisco, all civil service
crew members who had more than 90
days annual leave accumulated were
advised that they must use all leave in
excess of this amount prior to Deem
ber 81 or lose it. Many of these men
had been refused leave for months be-
cause of the shortage of marine per-
SSAAAA~A' la AAAOoI NooC0 CllCS IldN dNSuIIlus
lated large amounts of leave during the
war, and-having no other buffer
against unemployment were saving
their leave against what appeared to
be the inevitable loss of their jobs as
the occupation forces decreased. At
the end of 1850 the Government with
one hand was writing these men full
some compliments on their devotion to
duty and the efficiency with which they
had accomplished their missions, while
with the other hand it was reaching
into their pockets and abStracting, in
many cases, over a months pay-no
small matter to working man.
This taking of leave away from en-
ployes under circumstances which
smack of coercion and duress is no
more legal than the racket" which is
now being so vociferously condemned
by all right-thinking politicians, but I
am unable to understand why it should
be any less improper for the Govern
ment to take advantage of its en-
ployes than for employees to take ad-
vantage of technicality at the expense
of the taxpayers. The only difference
can see is that there are more tax
paying voters than there are voting
civil service workers.
John A. MOrriSey.