Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-11-16
Federal Pay

SATELLITES are IlOSL ulSpTOpOrL-
ionately below those paid for
comparable work in the pri-
vate sector. No mention is
made Of this gross inequity
that exists now and will be
made worse by the increases
which will take effect in
January 1864.
You cite average figures
comparing Federal salaries
with those paid by the State
Of Ohio. On the other hand
you make no mention of the
fact that. according to a
sta ITEM en- t made by Rep
reSentative Udall in the Con-
greSsional Record of October
20, higher salaries are paid
to a number Of top public ex-
ecutiveS in the State of Ohio
than are paid to such key
officials in the Federal Gov
eminent as the Admin
istrator Of the National Aero
nautics and Space Admin
istration and the Chairman
Of the Atomic Energy Com
mission. For example he
points to the salary of
$4,000 paid to the President
Of Ohio State University and
the salary of $4,000 paid to
the Superinten Of
Schools in Cincinnati, Ohio,
in comparison to the salary
of only $4,000 paid to the
United States Commissioner
Of Education. A number Of
other similar examples could
be cited.
If you consider the House
Committee to be a bad BILL"
what practical alternative
are you prepared to support2
r. Seggel.
-
You label the latest FEEDER
al pay bill as bad with the
one hand and then, with the
other, present arguments In
support Of at least some of
the bills provisions. You ap-
pear grossly uniformed with
regard to the bills history,
intent and content.
The proposal would not
add $500 million a year to
the cost Of government, as
you state. This figure is gross
cost-not net. At the hear
ings on this bill, Kermit Cor
don, Director Of the Bureau
of the Budget, testified that
a substantial part of this cost
would be absorbed within ex-
listing appropriated funds,
and John Macy, Chairman of
the Civil Service Commission,
testified that the quality of
personnel that competitive
salaries would attract would
result in greater, not lesser
economy.
Only partially correct is
your statement that the pro-
posed increases would come
on top of substantial increas-
es already approved and
scheduled to take effect in
January. This statement is
incorrect for those career
employees in the upper
grades. Approved January
rates provide no increase at
all for GS-18 employees. This
failure, in turn, created seri-
GUS compression and inequi-
ties in the salary rates Of the
several grades Immediately
below. In its report on the
1862 pay bill, Congress &C
knowledged that pay adjust
ments for those in the upper
grades r e m a inc d as unfit
nished business.
You aver that the pay plan
is unrealistic since it disre-
CARDS the very substantial"
fringe benefits which go with
certain" jobs. Just what
fringe benefits and jobs are
being referred to? Fedora
employees, particularly those
in the middle and upper
grades, hardly have anything
to compare with their in
dustrial counterparts who
enjoyed stock options, de-
ferred salary payments, nom
contributory retirement plans,
and freedom from conflicts
of-interest laws, as we'll as
ia x-favored expense ac-
counts. Your statement is
meaningless without factual
support.
Your entire editorial re-
fleets no awareness what
Soever of the following facts:
That the proposed addition
al increases are based upon
technically accepted findings
of the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics that @@ additional in