fellow veterans who were entitled to preference but a lesser preference than his because of his injury. Quite often it requires a very little bit of disability, disability, sometimes a disability not even apparent to the average person and have actually very little incapacitating effect in order to be rated 10 percent and 10 percent seemed awfully low for this absolute preference which would be extended under the provisions of this act. We do not believe they are justified. We think that ultimately they would create more harm than they would do good and we believe that when you are dealing with 2 million people you are bound to find some who would not be above doing things that are not exactly right and we say that abuses might arise as a result of people deliberately acquiring an injury in order to fall within this category and receiving an absolute preference in employment. Mr. O'HARA. Did you give us an example of some of the difficulty you have had with preference situation with veterans? Mr. DORSON. I cannot give you an example of any actual difficulty I have had with it because I have not had any. I only know from having been a Federal employee myself and representing Federal employees of the much grumbling I have heard over the years as a result of it, a dissatisfaction generally. Mr. GOODELL. I certainly concur with that, having been a Federal employee. It is generally so. Mr. DORSON. I am sure that it is not any secret, Mr. Goodell. It has been pretty widespread. And there have been any number of attempts to break it up. But as to actually being aggrieved myself or being aware of specific cases except on a general basis I cannot cite any such cases. Mr. O'HARA. Maybe I had better talk to Mr. Goodell about it some time. You split off retention from the reemployment and so forth. In other words, you do not feel that reemployment and employment preferences are objectionable at least to the same extent preference is? Mr. DORSON. No, sir, I do not, because I believe that the Federal employee who is injured on the job and is disabled for a period of time should be entitled to reemployment preference. He should by any means possible be restored to employment. If you want to give him some additional credit for his injury, then you put him in a job that he can do, not one that he cannot do or cannot successfully compete against his fellow employees and then keep him there by means of absolute preference. Thus, when he is working alongside someone who can do the job and who has to do perhaps a little more or catch all of the high work or things of that sort because this fellow who has the preference cannot perform it because of some disability for which he receives credit whether or not it is actually incapacitating, then you are going to cause some grumbling and some dissatisfaction. But so far as reemployment is concerned he certainly should be given every right to reemployment and if he cannot be reemployed at his original job we think the Federal Service is broad enough so something could be found that he can do but from that point on we think that he should compete. Mr. O'HARA. He should be treated like any other employee? Mr. DORSON. Yes. And I believe he will be probably happier. Most of them will be as a result of it and I am sure the vast majority of Federal employees will be. Mr. O'HARA. I have no further questions. Mr. GOODELL. You do not make any specific recommendation, you did not want to put a figure on what percent. I think your words are that it should be raised to an amount far greater than 10 percent. Are you thinking of 60 or 70? Mr. DORSON. I was thinking in terms of at least 40. We would much prefer that there would not be any absolute preferance at all. But our suggestion to the committee was that if, by means of other testimony and other evidence which you will have, you determine that this is the right thing to do then most certainly it should be raised to far greater than 10 percent. Mr. GOODELL. If I understand you correctly, you have no objection that a person with a 10-percent total disability should have some preference as to his certification for employment-for appointment, reinstatement, and reemployment? Mr. DORSON. None whatever. It is only with respect to absolute retention. Mr. GOODELL. Do you feel that this preference for appointment, reinstatement, and reemployment should be any higher or could properly be any higher, above this 10 percent? Mr. DORSON. I think it probably could properly be higher. Mr. GOODELL. What I am getting at is that you are well aware of the type of disability that is rated total 10 percent? Mr. DORSON. Yes, I am afraid so, and it is very slight. Mr. GOODELL. That is correct, in my experience. Mr. DORSON. So we would certainly see nothing wrong with raising it to some higher figure. We are not concerned with the matter of reemployment. We think he should receive extra consideration for reemployment but beyond that point if he is able to be reemployed then he ought to be reemployed in the position which he can physically or mentally perform in competition with his fellow employee and he should receive any absolute retention preference beyond the time of his reemployment. Mr. GOODELL. I do not want to put you on the spot on this but could you give some examples of the type of things that are sometimes rated 10 percent total disability? were, Mr. DORSON. The loss of a couple of fingers which would impair the use of a hand, some real or imagined but hard to establish proof either for or against impairment of a hand or leg, other rather relatively slight things, not slight to the person involved surely, but representing no real impairment in the performance of his duty. If he for instance, a clerk whose principal duties were reading and writing in the performance of his job the fact that he had a couple of fingers gone off his left hand if he were a right-handed person which would rate him 10 percent would not make a great deal of difference in the performance of his job. There are people where that would make a great deal of difference. If he were a carpenter and he lost his thumb and had some nailing to do he would probably find it difficult to hold a nail so it depends on what he would be doing, but 10 percent from our experience is relatively slight, a loss of 10 percent. Mr. WIER. I am going to ask you one more question: I take it from your increase in the maximum that most of the people you represent here today are in the upper grades? Mr. DORSON. No, sir; that is not so. Not most of them. If we have to take it on a basis of most of them, most of them would be in the lower grade. However, all employees are eligible, all civilian employees are eligible for membership in our organization from the bottom grade 2 to the top grade, and we have some in all of them. Our principal concern is with the matter of equity and of course all our people who may be in grade 7 now hope to hold a grade 14 or 15 some day and I think it proper that we all work toward that level because I think we have better employees when they are ambitious and want to better themselves, that the Government benefits thereby. In 1949, $525 was two-thirds of about $9,444 average salary. That was the fourth step in GS-14 of the Classification Act at that time, $640 would be two-thirds of $11,520 salary, which is only the second step in GS-14, it would need to be $670 if it were to be two-thirds of the present fourth step in GS-14. It is a matter of equity, Mr. Chairman, plus the fact that with regard to the increases proposed under title II which we think are quite proper a person recently injured would wind up getting more because there is no recognition of the ceiling in title II that we can find so the person already receiving the maximum could receive an increase but the person injured after the effective date of the act could not, he would be limited to the $520. Mr. WIER. That no doubt would be a very controversial figure in the Department of the Budget? Mr. DORSON. Yes, sir; I am sure it will be. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our colleague, Mr. Goodell, what he thinks the reaction of members of Congress would be if they could get absolute preference extended to them if they suffered injuries? Mr. DORSON. There is a matter to explore. Mr. WIER. Well, if that is all the questions, Mr. Dorson, I want to, on behalf of the committee, express our appreciation of your contribution and your concern for the people you represent. Mr. DORSON. Thank you for your interest. Mr. WIER. Thank you. Will you identify yourself to the reporter? Mr. SILVERGLEID. I would like to introduce our national president, Mr. John B. McKay, who will make the statement to the committee. Mr. WIER. Identify yourself. Mr. SILVERGLEID. My name is David Silvergleid. I am secretarytreasurer of the National Postal Clerks Union. If I may I will submit a copy of the statement. Mr. WIER. That is the National Association of Postal Clerks? Mr. WIER. How many clerical unions do we have now? Mr. SILVERGLEID. I would say offhand there are at least five clerical unions who endeavor to organize post office clerks. Mr. WIER. Do you desire to read your statement or speak off the cuff? Mr. MCKAY. Mr. Chairman, our statement is rather brief. We would like to read it in case some question would come to the mind of those on the committee. Mr. WIER. That is vour prerogative. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MCKAY, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL POSTAL CLERKS UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID SILVERGLEID, SECRETARY-TREASURER Mr. MCKAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John W. McKay. I am president of the National Postal Clerks Union representing approximately 25,000 post office clerks throughout the United States of America and Puerto Rico. Accompanying me is our secretary-treasurer, David Silvergleid. At the outset, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. We are grateful to those Members of Congress whose bills are being considered by this subcommittee in connection with the vital subject of workmen's compensation. The last extensive revision of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act occurred October 14, 1949. Since then, certain inequities developed and, though there was a great need for remedial action, such proposals have not received much attention during the past several sessions of Congress. Last week, we prepared a statement for presentation to this com mittee outlining our position on the numerous bills before you. Actually, Mr. Chairman, that was about 2 weeks ago. We prepared our statement for testifying about a week ago. We suggested the desirable features of all such bills be incorporated in one omnibus bill, representing the considered recommendations of the subcommittee. Apparently, your chairman, Congressman Wier, recognized the advisability and practicability of such an approach and introduced H.R. 10705, which proposes eight remedial changes in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as follows: 1. Continue compensation for scheduled disabilities after retire ment. 2. Raise the minimum rate of compensation in case of total disability to $225 per month. 3. Furnish all doctor and medical services, appliances, and supplies in cases where such services are needed after an employee entitled to compensation has been placed on the civil-service retirement rolls. 4. Increase funeral benefit from $400 to $800. 5. Continue an employee on compensation, even though his rate of disability has been reduced, if he seeks employment and is unable to find it, and does not turn down an opportunity for such employment. 6. Provide a penalty in section 109 for those who attempt to influence an employee to forgo filing a claim for compensation benefits. 7. Provide payment on the basis of current pay in cases where there is a recurrence of disability. 8. Provide an increase for those on the compensation rolls. (This increase will amount to 50 percent if the injury—or injury causing death occurred before July 1, 1951; or by 15 percent if the injury occurred after July 1, 1951, but before January 1, 1958. In no event shall the amount of the increase exceed $100 per month.) We are in complete agreement with the purposes and provisions of H.R. 10705. However, in view of its omnibus character, we would suggest including therein the main provisions of H.R. 6577, H.R. 5182, and H.R. 2873. H.R. 6577 proposes to facilitate the collection of fees by attorneys representing claimants under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This is desirable in that it will enable Federal employees injured on duty to more easily obtain necessary legal assistance. H.R. 5182 provides specific compensation for the loss of a procreative organ and speaks for itself. H.R. 2873 proposes to eliminate the present limitation of benefits for U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico and would be a matter of simple justice to U.S. citizens employed in Puerto Rico. Inasmuch as necessary remedial legislation in this field has been too long delayed, we urge prompt consideration and action by this sub committee. In closing, may we again thank the chairman and members of this subcommittee for permitting us to testify. We appreciate your evident interest in the subject matter of this legislation and hope you will support the essential improvements to the Compensation Act we have recommended herein. Mr. WIER. Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. No questions at this time. Mr. WIER. Mr. Goodell? Mr. GOODELL. I don't believe I have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCKAY. Mr. Chairman, if I may Mr. WIER. Yes? Mr. McKAY. There has been one other item brought to our attention which is not included in our statement and that is a provision that employees injured on duty who return to work and who are required to go to U.S. hospitals as outpatients are required to do so off the clock, in other words, in an off-duty status. We would like to suggest that some provision be made to allow such employees to receive this outpatient service officially so that their time off from work would be covered. We could suggest some kind of a bookkeeping credit or something that would give them the same provision for out-patient service as they now receive at the time that the accident occurs. In other words, if the person is injured on the clock, at the present time he has to be taken to a hospital, he is covered for the time that he loses but if he should have to go back to have a bandage dressed or to have something else done there is no provision for covering the time that he loses from his employment during such subsequent visits to U.S. hospitals or U.S. physicians. Mr. WIER. If there are no questions I will express the appreciation of the committee. You have done a very good job in outlining the changes here, I will say that. Mr. MCKAY. Thank you, sir. Mr. WIER. It is much more simple for us to see exactly what the highlights of the bill are, and the changes from the present bill to the proposed new bill. Like yourself we find that most of these organizations have much to contribute to the bill. Thank you on behalf of the committee. Mr. MCKAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your very evident interest in this subject. Mr. SILVERGLEID. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. WEIR. I think I can assure you that the committee and the Congress will generally accept the theory that in the years that have |