STATEMENT BY ROGER W. JONES, CHAIRMAN U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE UNITED STATES SENATE APRIL 28, 1960

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2004
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: April 28, 1960
• Content Type: STATEMENT

Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL D1,1..IVERY .. EXPECTED AT 2L30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1960
STATEMENT BY ROGER W. JONES, CHAIRMAN
U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
UNITED STATES SENATE
APRIL 28, 1960
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
The Committee today is to discuss the pay situation in the Federal
Government, particularly as it may relate to any proposals for a general
pay increase. I hope that this statement may assist the Committee in its
discussion and deliberations. May I say at once that I do endorse the pro-
posal to make permanent the 21% temporary increase in salary for employees
in the postal service, as recommended in the Budget Message of the President
and as proposed in S. 3141.
However, I cannot support legislation which
would provide general pay increases for the Classification, Postal, and
other statutory salaried groups.
In support of my position, I would like to comment on the pay picture
for the civilian service as a whole and give a number of reasons why we
would oppose general pay increases at this time. Two chief principles are
involved. The first is conviction that we have no acceptable basis now for
coordinating Federal pay systems and should await the development of data
on which a rational pay policy can rest for a number of years to come, - --
a flexible and equitable basis for keeping Federal compensation reasonably
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
competitive with private business and industry. The second is the adverse
fiscal implication of general pay increases at this time.
Testimony of
the Bureau of the Budget sets forth clearly the position of the Adminis-
tration on this score. Lot me also indicate that many pay systems and
statutes would inevitably be involved in general pay legislation. This
Committee is fully cognizant of the multiplicity of divergent pay plans in
the Federal service. A report presented by Chairman Johnston on March 180,
1953 (Senate Report No. 34) describes briefly some 90 pay plans then exist-
ing in the Government. Unfortunately higher priority business prevented
the Subcommittee from investigating and evaluating at that time each of
the plans which were identified.
Background
In June 1959 some 2,380,000 civilians were employed in the diverse and
important missions carried out by the departments and agencies. Of this
number? about 1,078,4000 employees were in the Department of Defense,
550,000 were in the Post Office Department, 171,000 were in the Veterans
Administration, and 583,000 in all other departments and agencies combined.
Of these employees, only about 234,000 (10 percent) were located in the
Washington, D. C. metropolitan area. The remainder were assigned in
thousands of offices located in the states, the territories and possessions,
and in foreign countries. Among the states, Vermont had the fewest Federal
employees -. 3300, as compared to about 237,000 in California.. Approximately
129,000 employees were in foreign countries of which about 96,700 were non-
citizens.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
The Federal civilian payroll amounts to about $12.5 billions per annum
for the entire service. It is made up of about $148,000,000 for the legis-
lative branch, $35,000,000 for the judicial branch, and about $12.3 billions
for the executive branch. When we are dealing with annual expenditures of
this magnitude, it is easy to understand why pay legislation is such a very
serious business. The cost of any pay legislation, of course, depends in
part on its coverage. For example, the coverage pattern of the 1958 pay
legislation was very broad. It included the Classification Act of 1949,
the Postal Field Service Compensation Act, the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans Administration, the Foreign Service Act of 1946,
and employees in the legislative branch and certain employees in the judicial
branch. It also authorized retroactive pay increases for those employees
of the Federal Government and the Municipal Government of the District of
Columbia whose rates are fixed by administrative action (except wage board
employees). By subsequent Congressional action, funds were even authorized
for increasing the pay rates of thousands of employees of the Agricultural.
Stabilization County Committees who are not Federal employees. Thus the
coverage, direct or indirect, of the 1958 pay Act extended to practically
all groups of civilian employees except the wage board group and those
individual positions for which Congress specifically fixes salary rates.
As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, any general pay increase, follow-
ing the 1958 pattern, would in all. probability be concerned with the major
share of the annual salary bill of the Federal government.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
-- 4 -
The taxpayers generally, as well as the Government and its employees,
are vitally concerned with this huge payroll. There has never been public
indifference to the problem of appropriately compensating employees of the
Federal Government. Generally, we in America have followed the principle
that the Federal salary system should be compatible with the sound business
practices of private enterprise, - justifiable in cost, and equitable in
pay relationships among its employees. But it now appears that we have not
done much in recent years to follow the principle we espouse. If the Federal
Government is to correct the situation and attain this end, it must have a
comprehensive pay policy. Unfortunately, we have no such policy. The impetus
of pay raises since the end of World War II, almost 15 years ago, has proved
that we have never done a proper job of inter-relating pay systems. In lieu
of making such an effort, we have been prone to grant percentage and across
the board increases without consideration of the policies underlying such
an approach. Until a sound pay policy is developed, pay legislation will
continue, as in the past, to put patch upon patch, with little fundamental
improvement to show for a continuing increase in payroll costs.
There are many variations in our present pay systems. For example,
under the Classification Act of 1949 and the Postal Field Service Compensation
Act of 1955, pay is based on the duties and responsibilities of the job and
the qualifications required for its performance. In other words, the job is
priced and not the man. Conversely, in the Foreign Service and in the
Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans Administration, the man,
rather than the job, is priced on. the basis of personal qualifications and
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
-- 5 -
service, although a defensible relationship is maintained between the rank
of the man and the level of the assignment.
Pay may be set by Congress on a nationwide basis. It may be set by
Administrative action on a local, regional, or national prevailing rate
basis as is the case with the many wage board plans for artisans and crafts-
men. In some cases, the pay rates may be at least partially negotiated, as
is the case in the Government Printing Office and in the Department of the
Interior for certain employee groups.
Differences in the locus of responsibility for pay administration
foster wide divergence among pay plans. For example, Congress fixes salary
schedules and pay plans for the Classification. Act and Postal groups, and
even the Zoo Police. For other groups, agencies are given wide discretion
in fixing and adjusting pay schedules as in the case of several hundred
thousand blue-collar workers. There appears to be no uniform basis for
these differences. Congress sets some high-level salaries, but permits
others to be set administratively. Under a variety of statutory and
administrative limitations and degrees of limitations, pay is fixed for
Public Law 313 positions, for experts and consultants, and for high-ranking
positions in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Congress permits some low-level salaries to be set administratively,
such as blue-collar workers at, lower levels but sets others by statute
(e.g., lower Classification Act levels, lower levels of postal workers,
including those performing manual labor)o
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
r 6 W
In the case of salary schedules established by statute, there are no
clear-cut criteria for determining when pay adjustments are necessary, the
amounts of adjustments to be made, or the basis for making adjustments.
The periods between pay adjustments vary considerably. Adjustments
are made almost annually for employees whose wages are fixed by wage boards;
at the other extreme, the salary of members of Congress has been increased
only five times in the past 100 years. I know of no other group who, on
the average, have had to wait 20 years to have their compensation adjusted
to meet prevailing conditions.
Now I would like to refer to a brief quotation from the Message of the
President of January 18, 1960, transmitting the Budget for the fiscal year
1961.
"In 1958 immediately following enactment of a 10% general
salary increase for Federal civilian employees, I proposed to the
Congress a review of all compensation systems in the three branches
of the Federal Government, directed toward adoption of an equitable
employee compensation policy. This recommendation was renewed in
my budget message for the 1960 fiscal year.
"It has been more than 30 years since a thoroughgoing review
has been made of the manner in which the Federal Government com-
pensates its employees. There are now dozens of pay plans in the
executive branch alone. Review and coordination of the excessive
number of pay plans now in existence are the most effective means
of removing inequities which adversely affect the Governmentts
ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in some fields.
Continued patching of individual Federal salary systems is not
satisfactory as a substitute for a comprehensive Federal pay
policy, which phould be developed either by authorizing a Joint
Commission such as I proposed or by some other equally effective
means. Pending development and adoption of such a comprehensive
policy, a general pay raise would be unwarranted, unfair to the
taxpayers of the United States, and inequitable as among employees
compensated under different and unrelated pay systems."
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
-7-
The general objectives,of such a review, as I see it, would be to
prepare comprehensive recommendations which would serve as the basis and
guide for legislative proposals as to the compensation system or systems
which would best meet current and foreseeable needs of the Federal service.
This would include a coordinated system of one or more plans for classifying
and compensating white-collar and blue-collar employees plus a comprehensive
basic pay policy for the Federal Government. Such a basic pay policy would
include a determination of the economic and social factors to be considered
in establishing pay scales; the appropriate relationships between Federal
Government and State and local government and industry pay; the appropriate
role of employees and employee organizations in determining classification
and pay policy; the extent to which salary and wage rates should be estab-
lished on a nationwide basis, on a regional or locality basis, or on an
industry basis; minimum wage and maximum wage policies; the locus of
responsibility for fixing and revising pay rates on a continuing basis;
the methods by which pay rates would be fixed and revised; and the methods
of installing any new classification or pay plan or plans.
We would hope that policy answers could be made to such questions as - -
Where Federal pay levels are based on prevailing non-Federal levels,
should the Government be the leader, be a "model em4oyer," maintain a
competitive position .. with the better employers .. with the average
employer? What weight should be given on Federal pay levels to such factors
as basic standard of living and standard of living improvement factors,
changes in consumer prices, increases in non-Federal salaries, minimum rates
fixed by the Government for private industry, increase in productivity,
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
governmental fiscal policy, or the effect of Government pay policy on the
general economy?
Some of these factors are sometimes considered when adjustments are
being made in statutory salary schedules, but such consideration as is given
is pretty much on a hit or miss basis and without regard to any consistent
policy,
Perhaps the most critical problem relating to statutory pay schedules,
particularly those of the Classification Act, is the lack of flexibility,
The problem is how to establish necessary flexibility with adequate controls.
More specifically, how can we best authorize prompt adjustment of pay schedules
when conditions warrant, or meet problems arising from differences in pre-
vailing pay levels among occupations or among localities? How can substantial
differences among individuals in the matter of accomplishments or qualifi-
cations be adequately recognized? Without doubt, the demands of modern
Government in a modern world suggest that greater flexibility in setting
and adjusting pay rates is an extremely important need.
The patch-work pattern of pay legislation which currently exists is
the result of political efforts to be fair, sometimes in response to group
pressures, sometimes to labor market necessities, and often in recognition
of unique agency problems. But Congress often has had to act without ade-
quate information, and the Executive Branch, until now, has done little to
remedy the lack. A contributing factor to the present imbalance may be that
legislative proposals which have pay implications are considered by numerous
Congressional committees without the benefit of uniform principles for action
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
-9-
or a coordinated review by any single committee of Congress. During the
86th Congress, bills containing compensation provisions were referred to
this Committee and to the Committees on Finance, Government Operations,
Agriculture and Forestry, Foreign Relations, Banking and Currency, Armed
Services, Appropriations, Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Public Works,
Labor and Public Welfare, Interior and Insular Affairs, Rules and Adminis-
tration, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Judiciary, and District of
Columbia - - a total of sixteen different committees, or every Standing
Committee of the Senate. During the same period, in the House of Repre-
sentatives, bills containing provisions relating to compensation matters
were referred to at least nineteen different committees.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that in many instances the pay provisions
are more. or less incidental to major purposes of the proposed legislation
being considered by other committees. It may be, because such compensation
provisions have not been of primary concern to other than this Committee,
that these matters are not given as thorough or consistent consideration
as they would have received if they had been brought before this Committee.
If most of the committees and subcommittees are to consider pay matters,
the Congress and the Executive agencies need firm policy guides. The only
substitute with any chance of success would be coordinated review of exist-
ing and proposed authorizations. This statement, Mr. Chairman, is intended
only to point out the fact that many pieces of legislation on pay matters,
have emanated from many committees of Congress with many differing points
of view. Under such circumstances it is no wonder that the present array
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
- 10
of several hundred statutes - - without a comprehensive pay policy -- - is
bewildering and inconsistent.
Survey of White-Collar Salary Rates
The most rational basis for considering pay increases is factual infor-
mation on the rates paid in private industry for work of approximate com-
parability to work in the Federal Government. The A&iinistration has advo-
cated the principle that Federal white-collar pay rates should be reasonably
comparable with rates paid by private enterprise for the same or similar work.
To put this principle into action, it is necessary to know the pay rates which
prevail in non-Federal employment. Unfortunately, although.there are bits
and pieces restricted either to levels of work or to specific geographic areas,
the existing information on white-collar pay is inadequate.
Although some surveys of salary rates have been made by non-Governmental
groups - - usually professional societies and trade associations - - which
periodically collect pay data for certain classes of professional, adminis-
trative, and technical employees, they usually either ignore or inadequately
define the level of work for which pay rates are gathered. The only Govern-
mental survey of use is that which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has conducted
of wages for clerical and office workers in 20 metropolitan areas. It, too,
has been limited to a few types of jobs in the lower levels. However, taken
individually or as a group, these surveys have not provided representative,
nationwide data for a reasonable sample of Classification Act jobs.
I am glad to report that this situation is being changed. In September
of last year Congress authorized and provided funds to the Bureau of Labor
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
- It
Statistics for a broad survey program which will permit annual nationwide
estimates of the rates paid in private employment for work similar to that
performed by Federal employees under the Classification Act, The expanded
survey will cover SO areas which are representative of the metropolitan areas
of the United States. Under the new plan, which is now in operation, pay
data will be collected on a representative sample of Classification Act
occupations from GS-1 through GS-15. The survey will cover 28 occupations
and 77 work levels selected from the following fields of work; clerical,
general administrative, accounting, personnel, engineering, legal, natural
sciences, and mathematics and statistics. Among these fields of work .pre--
fessional and managerial pay data will be collected from 2100 establishments
selected from manufacturing; transportation, communication and other public
utilities; trade; finance and insurance; and engineering and architectural
services. Clerical data will come from all 15,000 establishments to be
covered by community wage surveys,
The definitions of industry equivalents of Classification Act Jobs at
the GS-1 through GS-15 levels already have been tested in a pilot survey
conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of industries
scattered throughout the United States. In the case of industry work equiva-
lent to the GS-16, 17, and 18 levels the Civil Service Commission is under-
taking a series of case studies in 26 companies, each of which employ 20,000
or more persons. This study will deal with pay in the fields of science and
engineering, finance, legal, personnel, industrial relations, and plant
management.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
12 -
The first annual report on nationwide white-collar pay will be based
upon Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys in 60 metropolitan areas between
July 1, 1959 and June 30, 1960. A preliminary report will be published in
September 1960. Subsequent annual reports will be based upon data collected
in all 80 areas. We are moving, at last, to provide a factual basis which
can be widely used.
It is true without any doubt that in many kinds of professional
activities, particularly at the starting levels and for senior jobs Federal
salaries are below those available in private industry. Engineers and
mathematicians are good examples, when we compare salary offers to new
college graduates or look at the offers senior government men receive daily
from non-Federal organizations. In the middle professional ranges the
picture is confused, and in the non-professional groups, almost anything can
be shown by way of pay relationships. From such data as are available, it
appears that Federal salaries in the lower levels of the Classification Act
compare favorably with rates paid in private industry. For example, the
results of a 1959 survey made by the National Office Management Association
are at least indicative of the pay relationships between government and
private industry in the first four levels of the Classification Act.
In 20 clerical positions covered, fairly direct comparisons can be made
with similar positions under the Classification Act ranging in grade from
GS-1 through GS-4. Some 388,000 employees (about 40% of the total coverage)
are in these Classification Act grades. You will note from the following
tabulation, that for eighteen of the twenty positions covered the salary
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
- 13 -
average of the appropriate Classification Act grade is from 3% to 22%
higher than the nationwide averages shown in the survey for similar
positions in private enterprise.
Sal
Grade
NOMA
Position Title
NOMA
Ind. Avg.
Class Act
Grade Avg.
Class. Act
as percent
of NOMA
GS-1
Mail Clerk/Messenger
X2860
$3271
114.4
GS-2
, General "B"
Clerk
3120
3507
112.1
.
Calculating Machine Opr. Jr.
3276
3507
107.1
Duplicating Machine (ipr.
3323
3507
105.4
File Clerk
2860
3507
122.6
Key Punch Operator
3276
3507
107.1
Tabulating Machine Opr. "B"
3744
3507
93.7
Typist "B"
3068
3507
114.3
GS-3
Bookkeeping Machine Opr.
3120
3814
122.2
Calculating Machine Opr. Sr.
3692
3814
103.3
Key Punch Opr. & Verifier
3588
3814
106.3
Stenographer 11 B"
3380
381
112.8
Tabulating Machine Opr. "A"
11472
3814
85.3
Telephone Switch Board Opr.
3432
381L
111.1
Switch Board Opr. Receptionist
3380
344
112.8
Typist "A"
3432
3814
111.1
GS-4
Accounting Clerk "B1'
3848
4133
107.4
Clerk, General"A?'
3348
4133
107.44
Payroll Clerk
3952
4133
104.6
Stenographer A ''
3796
4133
108.9
The data show that the minimum rate of the appropriate Classification
grade is higher than the nationwide salary average for nine of the positions
listed. I do not know whether the comparisons are valid, nor do I know
whether other data which may be presented to you will present valid compari-
sons. If the NOMA figures are valid something is wrong, and it will not be
corrected by blanket, across the board pay increases. In my opinion, these
data demonstrate why a general increase in all levels of the Federal salary
schedules is not justified at this time.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
14
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my whole thesis is that we
donwt have a comprehensive pay policy to guide the legislative and executive
branches in fixing and adjusting pay for Federal employees and that we do
not have a sound factual basis for making general pay increases. Our
Government is no small concern - - we are dealing with millions of em-
ployees and billions of dollars. We should know what we are doing, and why,
and we should have a firm and rational basis for our decisions. The execu-
tive branch alone cannot make the policy and neither can the legislative
branch -- - it is something that must be worked out together by the two
branches.
Until such time as the Bureau of Labor Statistics has completed the
surveys upon which it is currently engaged and the resulting reports are
available, justification for a general salary increase would be highly
speculative, to say the least, and at best such an increase could only
bring more confusion and uncertainty into the Federal pay policy picture.
In conclusion, Mr. C haizman, I want to emphasize that when the results
of the expanded HLS pay surveys are available, it will be possible to apply
on a sound basis the principle of reasonable pay comparability with pay in
private enterprise for comparable work. I recommend most sincerely that
we await these data before undertaking to set new pay policy or to adjust
existing rates. Any action taken now will be cited, inevitably, as reason
not to take action again next year, even to adopt new principles. It is,
perhaps, unfortunate that we have let ourselves get into difficulty,, but the
cure is not more difficulty with all of its attendant fiscal consequences
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2
..15-
and creation of further imbalances. It is my considered opinion that a
general salary increase would not have the merit its advocates. allege for
it. I urge the Committee to defer any action except to the extent of
making permanent the 21% temporary increase in the pay of postal employees.
I thank you for the opportunity to present my views.
###
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400110021-2