In addition to his temporary total disability, he shall draw his full pay when he returns and 288 weeks of compensation. This is for the loss of the member. In the second illustration in the proposal herein, let us assume that the employee is hit on the head in the course of his employment. The blow paralyzes the lower extremity of his right side, making his right leg useless. Assume he returns to work at full pay at the end of 4 months. True, he drew his temporary total disability, but after he returns to work at full pay he will draw no further benefits for the loss of use of his leg, although it may be in fact less useful than the artificial limb which would be provided in the first illustration under our proposal. The proposed amendment recognizes in law the medical fact that an injury to the nervous system or to the body other than the member itself may result in the useless member. Compensation should be based upon the seriousness of the impairment and in accord with the fact rather than the legal premise alone. Otherwise, injustices do arise, and so we recommend that this amendment be certainly adopted. The second part of the amendment to section 5, subsection (a), provides that compensation for schedule disabilities shall be payable in addition to retirement pay. In the great majority of States, and in fact I cannot call off right now a single State in which it is not the law, an industrial worker will draw his scheduled loss regardless of whether or not he is drawing social security or even his full pay. The retirement system is based upon other considerations. The theory behind the scheduled loss benefit program is that in addition to the wage loss which results from any job-incurred injury, the employee suffers from a physical impairment and, therefore, should, in addition to his wage loss, if such there be, be compensated for his physical handicap. Retirement is paid for service rendered. Wages are paid for worker service performed. Since the scheduled loss is paid regardless of wage earnings, we believe that the retirement pay ought not to be offset to compensate for the physical impairment to an employee injured in the course of his employment. The amendment to section 6, subsection (c). The proposed bill amends section 6, subsection (c), in one respect only. It increases the minimum compensation per month in cases of total disability only to $51.92 a week. This floor keeps benefits from falling below this level for those whose lost average weekly wage is less than this amount. This amount is certainly less than adequate to underwrite the low legal maintenance of a person totally disabled. Amendment to section 9, subsection (a): The proposed bill requires the furnishing by the Government for needed services appliances and supplies for those in need but who have already been placed on the civil service retirement rolls. This is the extension, and only the extension, of a long-established practice. Medical care which has been made necessary by an injury incurred during employment should be for as long as necessary. Whether the employee is retired or not retired is not the issue. The important restriction and limitation is that the injury was incurred in the employment and that the subsequent need is casually related to that injury. Therefore, we would argue that if the appliance needed was due to the fact that time has long passed, it's worn out, it needs replacement, it was in the original case, because all I related to the injury, the medical benefits should continue. The amendment to section 10, subsection (A): The present law provides that Workmen's Compensation benefits under FECA should be provided for a widow until her death or remarriage. The proposal embodied in here was recommended by Arthur Larson, former Administrative Assistant to President Eisenhower, in a proposed set of standards for State workmen's compensation laws a number of years ago. Alaska, for example, already provides such a benefit under its workmen's compensation law. No law ought to encourage any person to live in conflict with sound social standards by economic encouragement. This proposal to pay a lump sum upon remarriage is both sound in equity and morals. The amendment to section 10, subsection (K). The present law assumes that all workers shall be considered to be earning not less than $150 a month. This simply means the minimum a widow could draw was $67.50 a month. The proposed amendment increases the minimum amount to a widow to $135 a month, or $31.75 a week. The amendment to section 11. This increases the funeral allowance from $400 to $800. Your attention is invited to the fact that most persons who are injured or killed on the job today or who die as a result of an injury on the job draw a benefit under their State Workmen's Compensation Act varying from $300 to $500, but it should be noted that there is also a coverage of $255 from social security. Federal employees are covered under one system only and it is only equitable that the burial allowance be increased. A check of burial allowances in the different States vary, for example, from $400 in Alabama, $500 in Alaska, $600 in California, $600 in Louisiana, $750 in Rhode Island, $500 in the State of Washington, and $350 in Wisconsin. It varies, but you must remember that added to this is the social security benefit also, which is not applicable to most of our Federal employees. Mr. WIER. Would you mind citing the small benefit? Mr. FAIR. Yes, I think I can, Mr. Chairman. The maximum under the social security is $255. Arkansas and Texas have $250. Mr. WIER. Thank you. Mr. FAIR. Most of them run between $450 and $500, which with the $255 brings them up to $650 to $750, in that area. The amendments to section 12, subsection (b) grants discretion to the administrators of the act to employ the injured worker's average wage in fact rather than limitation to point of hours in computing his compensation. Amendment to section 24 adds a new subsection (b): This provides a punishment to an administrator, a coemployee, who fails to provide an accurate description of the material facts within his knowledge in relation to any injury compensable under this act. The amendment to section 40, subsection (f): This amendment strikes out the present subsection (b) and inserts in lieu thereof a new subsection. The date of injury and the date of disability may be separated in time by as many as a couple of years or more. It is only fair and just that the monthly pay shall be determined again at the discretion of the administration at the time when the disability occurs or recurs. This is a marked improvement in line with what is happening in the more progressive States, and recommended by students of workmen's compensation, Cheit of California, Somers of Haverford, Larson of Duke. This is a marked improvement over the present legislation and it will correct a number of injustices which regularly occur within the narrow definition. The amendment to section 43 to be redesignated as section 44: Here may I say is the section which places a new emphasis on the workmen's compensation program, an emphasis which we feel, which the students of rehabilitation feel, is of vital importance. By far the most important basic amendment ideologically proposed to the bill is the authorization and the direction to the Civil Service Commission to give preference in reemployment. Rehabilitation is never fully effective unless the injured employee is returned to employment when such is at all possible. The Congress has recognized in fact in the vocational rehabilitation acts. In this proposed amendment the bars are not removed and the gates opened wide to keeping on the payroll people who are not qualified, but it only recognizes the handicap of the employee and encourages his proper placement. In the final analysis this will substantially reduce the cost of, I believe, not only the Federal Employees Compensation Act, but if adopted by the States will do so in workmen's compensation generally. It is true it will place additional burden on the Civil Service Commission in administration, but a burden exacted in the best interests of the personnel morale of the U.S. employees. The greatest psychological encouragement to full rehabilitation is reemployment. The Ontario Compensation Commission of Canada system attempts to obtain the same results through voluntary procedure with private. industry and points with pride to the success of its rehabilitation program reemployment in the same position or similar positions is accomplished. Because our Government represents all of the people it. should lead the way within our country to successful personnel management. I know of no better way of leading in the employment of workers injured on the job than to adopt this proposed amendment. The ultimate goal of workmen's compensation can be provided only by, in my opinion, the enactment of such legislation. Subsection (d) pertaining to the unremarried widow will apply to very few persons, although I do not rate its importance with the reemployment rights of the individual employee who is injured. It is indeed an encouragement and there is a feeling of security within it to governmental employees. Title II of this bill corrects the injustices created by the changing value of times and the dollar. It is written in terms of human understanding. Congress has over the years greatly improved the basic amounts in social security. It should do no less for its own who are injured on the job or their dependents. Thank you. Mr. WIER. Is that all? Are there any questions of Mr. Fair? Mr. RILEY. This presentation is a joint presentation. I might add that the question you asked a while ago about the smallest amount will be included as part of a general chart for the record, a rather comprehensive chart. Mr. WIER. I am curious about one thing, Mr. Riley. You, representing the legislative branch of the AFL-CIO organization, in the main have not all, but most of the organized Government employees in your union. Is there general agreement among most of the organizations for some one bill here, this one or some other bill? Mr. RILEY. I am sure that will be expressed through the Government Employees Council. Mr. WIER. I wanted to start at the top. Mr. RILEY. The carriers are represented here by Mr. Keating, and Mr. Campbell of the American Federation of Government Employees and others will speak in their right and on their own time. Mr. WIER. Is there anyone here speaking for Federal employees? Mr. RILEY. Mr. Campbell represents the Federal employees through the American Federation. Mr. WIER. That is what I wanted to know to see if there is general agreement here, so that the committee understands the drive of the Federal employees is centered on the overall bill that is now before us. Mr. RILEY. My information is that this is a bill which they are all heartily in favor of. Mr. WIER. Are there any questions, Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. If possible, perhaps it will be better to hear Mr. Riley. Mr. WIER. This is a joint presentation on behalf of both of them. Mr. O'HARA. All right. I regret that I got in a few minutes late. Will a copy of your testimony be available, Mr. Fair? Mr. FAIR. If the chairman permits, I would like to put it into form other than the memorandum. Actually what I have been working from is a memorandum from our department to the legislative department, which is the insurance department over to the legislative department, and if I may I will try to submit it by tomorrow, if that would be satisfactory to the chairman. Mr. RILEY. We will supply individual copies. Unfortunately we haven't been able to reduce it to that form as of now. Mr. FAIR. We are short secretaries due to the snow storm. Mr. WIER. All right. Mr. FAIR. My girl isn't in from southern Maryland yet. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to ask Mr. Fair about this preference for the reemployment provision. Why is there language in here which says "within a year recovers sufficiently to resume suitable work"? What does the length of time have to do with either giving or not giving preference of this kind. At the very beginning of the subsection (a) it reads: Any employee who *** within a year recovers sufficiently to resume suitable work * Suppose he took 18 months to recover; he would get nothing under this provision. Mr. FAIR. I take it farther down that they have provided for this. At this time you notice the emphasis; ** * if he is still qualified to perform the duties of his position, be reemployed in such a position. I think they tried to emphasis the period of time in this language here. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the point of the period of time? I should think if you are going to grant someone as sweeping a preference as this, because of his disability you wouldn't preclude him from any benefits if it took him over a year to recover. I should think you might raise objections to whether we should go that far in establishing preferences, but if you are going to establish preferences and say if he is qualified or if he isn't qualified and then spell out what he is entitled to, you wouldn't say that he must recover within a year. Mr. FAIR. This puts a limit. Ideally, with regard to a person who suffers a job-incurred injury, whether the period be 1 year or 2 years, in an employment as large as ours the job ought to be the job or similar job and the preference should be there. I think no one would question this. I think you find when you draft any legislation of this kind whether you open into new areas, you have the thought in your mind that there must be restrictions to see the limitations and what happens under operation and administration. This is the only justification, as I see it, in this particular part of the section. I did not draft this. Sometimes people who draft have different ideas from those who read it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Maybe you can't enlighten me about this subsection (b): Such reemployment shall take effect even if the employee may have been separated from the rolls while receiving or entitled to benefits * * *. If he voluntarily resigned, and I don't know just what kind of a separation this refers to, he could still be reinstated under subsection (a) even though he had been completely separated as an employee? Mr. FAIR. Let me say this has two implications. While entitled to benefits under the act often a person may leave an employment, take another employment, and find out that the disability which he suffers later is causally related to the other employment. It seems to me "while entitled to benefits under this act" would be covered in this particular section. While receiving benefits he may at sometime for reasons of health assume employment where there is no Federal employment available to him, back home, moved back to another area, and later would like to reapply for his rights. It is restricted always to the fact that there is a causal relationship to the injury which he claims he suffered in his employment and he must establish that causal relationship in order for this section to become effective. Do I make myself clear to you? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am afraid you don't. Mr. FAIR. All right. See if I can put it this way for you. Often when you suffer a disability you desire maybe to return to another area to live for a while, and this could happen very easily for reasons of health, for reasons of associations, and you take a temporary kind of work. It only provides in this provision that since his injury is causally related to the first place, if he desires to come back and is receiving benefits, he shall have the preference of reapplying if he has taken |