ranks had equivalent responsibilities of, and required equal compensa tion for, certain corresponding GS grades.

And we have included, Mr. Chairman, a note taken from the House and Senate Report on our last pay bill that speaks to that point. (The above mentioned excerpt follows:)

From House Report No. 91-1061, to accompany H.R. 17138 of the 91st Congress, dated May 7, 1970, the following excerpt beginning at the bottom of Page 5 is quoted. "Public Law 88-575, effective July 1, 1964, recognized the need to establish parity between the personnel in class 5 through class 11 of the Police and Firemen's Salary Act and the General Services Grade Salary Schedule. Cognizance was taken of the fact that senior classified employees of the District Government had recently been given exceptionally large pay raises as a result of the federal program to achieve comparability between upper level classified employees and upper level private industry employees. The Act of 1964 established the Office of Chief of Police at approximately GS Grade 17, the Executive Officer at approximately GS Grade 16, Deputy Chief of Police at about GS Grade 15, Inspector at about GS Grade 14,etc."

Although parity was achieved at that time, this principle became eroded over the next few years, and the dollar gap between equivalent positions widened. Parity was reestablished in 1969 although the monetary loss in this 1964-1969 era was not recovered. How this disparity cycle was repeated between 1969 and the present is illustrated in Table IV. Once again, the wage scales in H.R. 12710 will equate our salaries to those of our counterparts for a time. The dollar loss however, is a sum lost forever. It seems to us that this is a most vital point: that without the maintenance of parity, the latter becomes just a word, not a fact. Parity is not achieved by its brief realization every few years, with a widening unfavorable gap in the interim. We need the passage of H.R. 12710 to re-establish the position of equity with our counterpart GS workers that was initiated in 1964 and re-established in 1969. Having done that, we must seek means to maintain that relationship.

(Table IV follows:)

TABLE IV.-TABLE OF COMPARISON BETWEEN KEY RANKS OF FIREFIGHTERS AND THEIR GS COUNTERPARTS

Note: The total dollar loss shown by the table is the total amount of moneys lost by each rank, from July 1, 1969 to Jan. 1, 1972. The last column, monthly dollar loss, simply indicates the difference between our current salaries and the Jan. 1, 1972 GS scale, placed on a monthly basis. This monthly sum multiplied by the number of months involved will have to be added to the total dollars irretrievably lost unless the legislation is made retroactive to Jan. 1, 1972. The mutually agreed upon wage scales in H.R. 12710 (phase II) reestablish that parity.

Capt. GRANADOS. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. And with your approval, Mr. Raeder would like to make a few comments about one portion of the pay bill, after which, needless to say, we would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Raeder.

BACKGROUND OF PENDING PROPOSALS

Mr. RAEDER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Beginning just about a year ago at this time, January or February, or perhaps a little more than a year, we began negotiations with the District of Columbia government relative to a pay bill. There were two philosophies involved here. Both associations had decided to seek what, for want of a better word, I term a more radical approach to your pay system, a true longevity feature. The District of Columbia hewed to the line that we should retain the same old form. And negotiations continued interminably along an impasse course, until finally we had a couple of conversations with the Mayor, I think beginning in August. And namely, as a means of resolving this log jam, a compromise point was arrived at where by in the main we would separate the District position on the maintenance of the present wage format, but with the addition of a longevity credit, which was new, that is to say, at the expiration of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years, we would get pay increasements added of 5, 10, 15 and 20 respectively.

This seemed to be the things that got everybody together. Having been talking about pay since January, I think we were just desperate to get something on the board. And this looked like a reasonable thing for us to accept. And we did accept it. At the day that we left the meeting there was no doubt in anyone's mind there, either ours or in the District, that this particular facet, this little addition to the bill, would not be applied to everybody, active and retirees alike. We all assumed that it would apply to everybody, as most of our legislation does. So we left there with that in mind.

EQUALIZATION PAY

Two days later we came back to another meeting, when the District informed us that they had been too precipitous in their agreement, that they had checked the cost figures, and they had been unable to go with this longevity additional figure for anyone except active men, nevertheless, it would not apply to those men presently on the retired rolls. As a retired man, and it would affect me. And personally, it was hardly gratifying, to say the least, to find that this was the best we could do. But having been in negotiation for a year, and having been practically worn out and having come to what we thought was a conclusion, and then we found we could get the most of it-it wouldn't apply to everybody, but it would apply to the active men-we viewed it as, half a loaf was better than none, and we took it.

We do know that several of our retired men are distressed about this situation. They feel that it maybe a violation of the Equalization Clause of the pending Act. We believe that there have been other additions to our pay legislation in the past. As in just last year, Section 107-we believe that Section 107 provided something that was

made available to those on the active list, and it was not made available to those on the retired list. We would not want anything to breach our equalization clause if that is an absolute fact. We don't believe that this longevity feature does that. But as I say, the main reason for our accepting it was the fact that we just felt that half a loaf is better than none. It is with a great deal of regret and reluctance that our retired people are not included. And since I am one of them I can say that most sincerely. But we felt that under the circumstances that this compromise was the best we could arrive at. Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Raeder.

Mr. Nelson.

FUNDING THIS LEGISLATION

Mr. NELSON. I see nothing in the bill here, just glancing through it, as to the raising of money to finance the pay increase, but I believe you mentioned recommendations, did you not, as to the method of paying for the increase? Did you not refer to a tax sometime back?

Capt. GRANADOS. Mr. Nelson, we view this as being something beyond our area of competence. However, we have known since last February, when we initially began negotiations with the District on the pay bill, that unlike in past years, this bill was going to have to carry with it its own funding. And we have been certain all along that somewhere between the beginning and the end the District would come up with a means to fund it.

Then of course during the Revenue hearings, and conferences thereafter, it really came out hard and clear, as I am sure you are aware, that the District must provide funding for pay increases for teachers, firemen and police. In our discussions with the Mayor, it is our understanding that the District is very strongly considering an increase in sales taxes to provide the necessary revenue. And it is also our understanding that that even though we had signed on the first of December a Memorandum of Understanding with the District-all parties were in total agreement with every provision of the bill. The one and probably most important provision was an effective date of January 1. During the month of January, the Mayor called us in for a meeting, and we were informed that because the District was contemplating an increase in sales tax to provide the funding, and an increase in sales tax by its very nature would not be retroactive, therefore the District could not support the January 1st date. And that is the only difference. Mr. NELSON. It seems to me that I read something from your Association recommending support of the sales tax. I was just curious to see it. In our legislative process-and this has been true over a period of thirty years we often get recommendations for an expenditure, and yet seldomly ideas or support for funding. As I recall, I did see some communications from the Firemen and the Policemen indicating their support of the means of funding, which included the sales tax increase. I just wanted the record if possible to show what the position of your group was, if you are in support of an increase of the sales tax, in conjunction with your bill, yes or no?

Capt. GRANADOS. If that is what the District decides to go ahead, with, Mr. Nelson, we would certainly support it.

Mr. NELSON. Does this mean across the board sales tax, or the present tax provisions with an increase?

Capt. GRANADOs. I couldn't answer that question.

Mr. NELSON. I noticed the words in your statment, "hostility toward, and harassment of firefighters." Why in the world would anybody want to be hostile to a fireman who is out there trying to put a fire out that is destroying property? Have you any reading as to why this occurs?

Capt. GRANADOS. That is a question that we constantly ask ourselves, Congressman. We don't know why. It may go back to the use of fire hoses in Selma, or it may go back to the situation in Watts. We don't know why. But we do know that it is there.

Mr. NELSON. I have no further questions. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

Mr. LINK. No questions.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Broyhill.

GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIED PAY RAISES

Mr. BROYHILL. Just briefly, the question has been asked why the police and firemen and school teachers, for that matter-aren't tied into the classified pay raises the same as the other District of Columbia employees. Whenever the general civil service employees get a pay increase, usually through actions taken by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and based on cost of living increase, this puts into effect a pay increase for other District employees, and as a general rule, congressional employees. Now, in most instances, when we handle a pay increase or pay adjustment for policemen and firemen, we have to rewrite their salary schedule, do we not?

Capt. GRANADOS Yes, sir.

Mr. BROYHILL. In reference to correcting this slippage of some 17 percent since you have had your last pay raise, I assume it would be practically impossible to correct that by letting your pay raises be automatic with raises afforded civil service employees.

Capt. GRANADOS. We don't think it would be impossible, Congressman. We think that that could be done, and we should hope that the Congress would see fit to do that, to take us out of this situation. Just as the Chairman spoke of earlier, we are so late-it obviously looks like we got our last pay raise in June of 1970, but that is just not true, Congressman. We began negotiations with the District in the early spring of 1969, and after long negotiations, so that we wouldn't put the Congress in a position of being the arbiter between the District and the Associations, we had a bill introduced in July of 1969. The Senate introduced a bill and the House a little bit later. And it was a year getting passed. And we can't begin to hope for any more frequent pay raises than one in every two years, it is just beyond our hopes to imagine that would ever happen.

Mr. BROYHILL. That is not my point. I realize the same factors necessitating a pay increase for classified employees certainly are applicable to the police and firemen. And the raises should occur at the same time. But could this be done, in light of the fact that we are always involved in problems of readjustment between grades within the fire department and the police department? And the testimony of the police association talked about a need for adjustment in the pay of the helicopter crews. And I asked the question also about the salaries of the demolition experts. But this is something that won't be handled by another committee of the Congress, as automatic increases occur.

Capt. GRANADOS. We have given that a little bit of thought, Congressman. And we think that one way that it can be done would be to say that in fact when other District of Columbia classified employees got an increase, that the police and firemen and teachers would receive maybe 75 percent of that percentage increase, to keep us from falling so far behind, and then allow the District committees to adjust the final points, or whatever, so that we wouldn't fall so far behind, and still it would allow our schedule to be handled as a separate.

Mr. BROYHILL. Then with the 75 percent increase you won't have quite the appeal to come here and get us to make up the other 25 percent through salary adjustment. It might be wise to consider the full amount and then come back to the committee to consider the adjustments in grade, because generally you make an adjustment between grades when you are providing a pay increase. In fact, that is generally when it is done, is that not correct?

Capt. GRANADOS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CABELL. Captain, could you speak to the question of your present authorized strength versus your actual strength at the moment? Capt. GRANADOS. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we have been running about 50 members short over about the past year

or so.

OVERTIME PAY

Mr. CABELL. Can you justify the very high amount of overtime that we paid last year? I think it was right near a million dollars. (See p. 28.) If you are within 50 men of your authorized strength of 1412, could that terrific amount of overtime be justified?

Capt. GRANADOS. Well, it gets into the matter of the amount of the sick leave that is being taken by the men. We have a number of security details. We have the firefighting division which must by its very nature operate on a minimum strength. In order to keep our companies in service, there is a minimum number of men that must be on duty. But also the firefighting division is used as a pool to provide manpower for all the ancillary divisions of the department, and also to provide for inspection routes, the security inspections, and so forth. And therefore in order to maintain the minimum on duty strength, the department works men overtime to provide the necessary manpower.

Mr. CABELL. Would you ascribe any of that to absenteeism, to a large percentage of absenteeism?

Capt. GRANADOS. No, sir, not to any degree, other than sick leave and men awaiting retirement, and so forth.

Mr. CABELL. Your present schedule of work is what?

Capt. GRANADOS. 48 hours a week, sir.

Mr. CABELL. That is 48 hours a week. And how is that scheduled? Is that two days on and one day off?

Capt. GRANADOS. We work three days followed by three nights, followed by three days off. And then they throw in an extra day occassionally to make it round out and average 48 hours a week.

Mr. CABELL. How much moonlighting would you say goes on in the department?

Capt. GRANADOS. A very heavy amount. I would say a very large percentage of our men must moonlight in order to live in the communities that they want to live in and in order to provide for their families in the way that they think they should be provided for.