Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Officers spend much more time on highways during the hot Kansas summer than has been the case before." The Kansas Highway Patrol.

It goes on to name these things. I could not agree with it more. Mr. WHITENER. Of course, that is not involved in our present bill. Inspector SULLIVAN. I understand. But it is an inducement being offered in the county that we are confronted with.

Mr. WHITENER. I am very much impressed in these figures you give on the 170 other communities which have higher starting pay than you have here in Washington. Just looking at them, I would assume some of them are rather small towns.

Inspector SULLIVAN. Some of them are, but some of them are competitive with us, like New York and the cities in New Jersey. There are cities in those states from which we have recruited recently. We are not about to compare some of these where they are getting at the present time, one in New Jersey, starting at $6,250; Fresno, California, $7,000, and so on.

Of course, out in Alaska it is $8,424. We are the highest in starting pay but the cost of living is something that has to be taken into consideration.

Mr. WHITENER. Do your colleagues have anything to add?

Inspector SULLIVAN. No, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you all.

Inspector SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. The next witness is Albert O. Raeder, Legislative Representative of the Firemen's Association.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT O. RAEDER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, THE FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY FLOYD E. YOCUM, VICE PRESIDENT, AND CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. RAEDER. Mr. Chairman, the Fire Fighters Association District of Columbia, Local 36, IAFF, appreciates the opportunity of testifying on H. R. 13874 and related bills.

In this connection, we would like to express our appreciation to Mr. McMillan for the introduction of this legislation, and Mr. Sickles and Mr. Broyhill for their introduction of duplicate legislation.

We would also like to express our appreciation to Mr. Broyhill for the introduction last September 30 of H.R. 11362, which is really the platform on which this latter day legislation is based.

Mr. Chairman, in addition, we prepared this statement for the hearing last week and certain parts of it are no longer quite germane due to the amendment that the commissioners submitted. If you will permit, I will digress at such places where it is not relevant.

We shall speak first on H.R. 13874, which we support with minor amendments. In the grades of lieutenant and above, the new salaries are arrived at by combining the flat percentage increase of 1965 (3.6) with a percentage increase of 2.6 for this year. The 3.6 percent increase was that granted to all federal classified workers and to all D.C. employees with the exception of policemen, fire fighters and teachers. Implicit in this denial of last year's cost-of-living increases was a promise to rectify this action with an increase in this session of Con

gress which would be retroactive to the date of last year's pay raise to other government employees.

The 2.6 percent figure, for the current salary increase, was a hypothetical one, arrived at in advance. It happens to be less than the actual figure of 2.85 percent which was subsequently passed by the House of Representatives for all federal and D.C. classified employees. To deny these two salary increases to these officers (lieutenant and above) as well as all other members of the Fire Department, would be to place the Department in the role of "stepchild". All federal employees and all District of Columbia classified employees save the fire fighters would enjoy pay raises which are compatible with the increase in the gross national product and the cost of living.

It seems to us that the innate unfairness of any legislation which singles out our members for the sole group to be denied the combined salary increases of 1965 and 1966 is so obvious that it need not be dwelt on.

Mr. Chairman, these last few paragraphs were written prior to the amendments of last week. Prior to those amendments we were to receive one salary increase. After the amendment we are now to receive both so they are no longer as relevant as they were.

So much for salaries in the grades of lieutenant and above. The salary increases for private and sergeant in H.R. 13874 exceed the percentage increases for lieutenants and above (that is, the 6.2 percent formula for two yearly increases), and for the following reasons: The increase for the position of sergeant flows out of the increase for privates. The salary for this position must be increased to permit a smooth flow in the salary structure. Hence, our entire argument in this position hinges on our case for an accelerated increase in the position of private, which we expound below.

As of February 1966, of the 21 cities of 500,000 population and above, the entrance salary for the District of Columbia fire fighter on a comparative scale ranks tenth. An increase from $6010 to $6700 which this legislation envisions would place us fifth in the national picture. Surely, this would be no exalted rank for a department which ranks third nationally on the rating scale of the American Insurance Association. (See Exhibit No. 1 p. 92.)

In addition, we call to your attention, and we are sure that this will surprise you, the fact that on the basis of our present salary at entrance, there are a total of 65 cities or towns in the United States, ranging from Anchorage, Alaska, to Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, which offer the firefighter a greater salary at entrance than does Washington, D.C. (See Exhibit No. 2 p. 93.)

A comparison with the 20 other cities over 500,000 population shows that since our last increase in 1964, 18 of these cities have granted raises in salary, with the percentage average being in excess of nine percent. (See Exhibit No. 3 p. 94.)

An amazing about-face which distresses our organization is the reversal of the Commissioners' position on our pay legislation.

At the last session of Congress, they had prepared and sent to the Bureau of the Budget a bill which placed the entrance salary of the firefighter at $6500. Surely they believe that such a proposal was reasonable, proper, equitable and deserved.

This year, with a second increase for all classified D.C. employees inevitable, and of a degree which would place the entrance salary at approximately $6700, they have instead reduced their proposal for entrance salary from $6500 to $6226.

Here again there has been a change due to their amendment, Mr. Chairman. This $6226 has been increased to $6500. So now we are in the position of that character from Alice in Wonderland where we keep on plugging very hard in order to remain in the same place.

The logic of this position escapes us. We hope, and believe, it will also escape you. (See Exhibit No. 4 p. 94.)

On a comparative basis, it might interest you to learn that at a recent meeting of the Joint Council of the Central Labor Union, spokesmen for the Bricklayers and Capital Transit announced they were seeking employees. Apprentice bricklayers are being paid at $2.50 per hour and bus drivers at $3.18. Our present salaries start at $2.40 per hour. Believe me, the duties are not comparable.

Finally, we are presently unable to recruit for Fire Department Service the high caliber employee to which the citizens of the District have long been accustomed. We amplify and defend this statement in our opposition to H.R. 13700 given below and it would be redundant to repeat our argument here.

Given these facts, the proposed salary at entrance of the fire fighter of $6700 is certainly but a modest increase over the $6383 which would flow from the exact application of the 6.2 percent formula (3.6+2.6). We believe that the concomitant benefits of improved recruitment would in the years ahead amply repay the District of Columbia for this modest step-up.

As to the amendments mentioned in our opening remarks, we submit for the record a supplemental report in order not to unnecessarily take up the time of the committee. To sum up then, we urge your support of H.R. 13874.

As to H.R. 13700, we must register vigorous objection.

Last year a pay raise measure was drawn up by the Commissioners and sent to the Budget Bureau for approval. It dealt with and specifically recognized our recruitment problem by raising the entrance salary to $6500. We certainly understood the Commissioners to have pledged their commitment to the retroactive passage of such legislation at this session.

In addition, there will certainly be a second pay increase in this session. But H.R. 13700 not only denies the 1966 increase to us, but reneges on the salary increases which we were promised last year. Of course after their amendment the sentence should read, "It just denies the 1966 increase to us."

Secondly, and we attach tremendous importance to this objection, H.R. 13700 (by comparison with its companion measure, H.R. 13701) introduces disparate pay legislation between the Fire and Police. Departments.

This was entirely true prior to their amendment of last week. It has been rectified in part by their amendment raising to equal bases the salaries of the two departments, but the disparity still exists in that there is a six-month time lag between the salaries promised the police and the salaries promised to the Fire Department. In our view this disparity has not changed one iota. We would view it as a disparity if a dollar short or a day late.

Before going into our remarks on the disparity question, we would like to make it crystal clear, Mr. Chairman, nothing in our remarks is to be intended as disparaging to the Police Department, a group which is a fine organization, for whom we have the utmost respect, a view which we have reason to be on sound ground concerning.

I do not believe any group in the District of Columbia is more familiar with the high quality of the Police Department than is the Fire Department. At no time do we want to be put in position where we indicate any lack of respect for their high quality, but we are making these remarks here almost in self-defense. This disparity question has been raised and we believe it is important to put our position on the record.

Let us make our position clear. No one can defend parity. Who can say that a police officer working 40 hours a week and a fire fighter working 48 hours a week, each facing different hazards, are entitled to the same salary? But we can and do oppose disparity with all the vigor at our command.

Both departments seek recruits from a common manpower pool. Their physical and mental standards for appointment are virtually identical. The necessary attributes for recruits of both departments are honesty, common sense and guts. They both must protect the public safety. We ask you then, why disparity?

The morale factor involved here is tremendous.

Can you imagine the overwhelming roar of protest emanating from one of the services if another branch of the Armed Forces was placed at a salary advantage. Yet the skills and duties required of Army, Navy, and Air Force are different to a marked degree. Parity is maintained because disparity would be unthinkable.

Our situation is analagous. We do not appreciate any thought of relegating firefighters to a second-class status.

Once a wedge is placed, the breach can only become wider. The end result would be the natural flow to the Police Department of the cream of the candidates, and the Fire Department having to make do with what is left.

A side effect would be an almost certain lessening in the present amicable and close relations with the Police Department, and a marked unwillingness to cooperate. We would deplore such an attitude but to expect it to be otherwise would be naive.

We do not understand what has given rise to such an attempt. Is it thought that the police function is more hazardous? What supports such a contention?

Figures from the FBI and IAFF Research Department on injuries (see Exhibit No. 5 p. 85) rapidly lay that thought to rest. Nationwide figures on line of duty fatalities, limited to fatalities resulting from personal injuries caused by work accidents show the firefighter at 65 deaths per 100,000 workers, police at 43.5 per 100,000 workers, for 1964, with the same ratio prevailing for prior 5 years. (See Exhibit No. 6 p. 86.)

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »