Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-11-16
LETTERS TO THE STAR

creases are ecesarry to
equate Federal career salar-
les to salaries for comparable
work in the private sector of
the economy. That a COM
mittee of business executives,
chaired by Clarence Randall.
after intensive study, recon-
mended salaries substantially
higher than those contained
In the proposed bill. That ex-
ecutive and career salaries
historically have been pegged
below Congressional salar-
ies-that deserved increases
for executives and senior
careeristS are not politically
feasible without increases,
merited In their own right,
for members of Congress.
That members Of Congress,
too, deserve salaries COM
mensurate with their vital
responsibilities and the po-
litical skills required of them.
Your editorial ignores an
even more fundamental mat
ter: That the proposed bill
simply gives reality to Con-
gress' acceptance last year
that Federal salaries should
be ADJUSTED from time to
time to maintain compare
bility of Federal salaries with
those paid by non-F d era /
employers. Federal blue col
lar (hourly) employees have
been compensated on this
basis for many years. Can
anyone honestly argue that
Federal personnel should get
less than their non-Federal
counterparts for comparable
work?
Your editorial Is correct in
its conclusion that Federal
workers in the lower brackets
are not victims Of pay dis
elimination. Notwithstanding
the historical generosity of
Congress in fixing the pay of
lower grade employees, this is
hardly a basis for your edito-
rial disregard of the over
riding values Of the total bill
which, for the first time,
would permit the F deral
Government to compete fair
ly for the talent needed to
carry on the Governments
business in the public inter-
est.
In summary, this bill does
not deserve a bad press nor
the bad" label you have ap-
piled to it. And the influence
Of your otherwise excellent
newspaper is not enhanced
by your lop-sided and unin-
formed editorial.
r. L. Schultheis
=
You state the proposed in
crease would come on top Of
substantial pay increases al
ready approved and sched-
uled to take effect January /,
1854. The Substantial" pay
increases you refer to for the
vast majority Of postal en-
ployes average $125 per an
mum. We might add that the
administration admitted this
substantial" differential was
due the employees at the time
the last pay bill was enacted,
but was deferred purely for
budgetary reasons.
You further state the Fed
eral worker, particularly in
the lower brackets, Is not the
victim of pay discrimination.
We wonder VIII e tn er you
realize the Federal Pay Re-
form Act of 1862, while pro-
posing to establish the prin-
ciple of compatibility with
pay in outside industry, per-
mitted a two-year time lag
The pay bill presently under
consideration adheres to the
compatibility principle but
maintains a time lag Of one
year. We submit this hardly
indicates favorable treatment
for Federal employees.
The administration and
87th Congress, after consid-
cradle debate and delibera-
ton, enacted q pay reform
structure considered fair to
the Government and its en-
ployeS. This is the first test
in attempting to apply the
principles contained therein.
Unless the SSth Congress fol-
lows through on comparable
pay asses for Federal
employees the current pay
structure of the Federal Gov
eminent will become useless
and q traveSty.
David SilvergIeId.
Secretary Treasurer, Ma
tiOna1 Postal TTniNY1