AVERAGE STRAIGHT-TIME HOURLY EARNINGS FOR SELECTED OCCUPATIONS STUDIED ON AN AREA BASIS BY INDUSTRY DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA, OCTOBER

AVERAGE STRAIGHT-TIME HOURLY EARNINGS FOR SELECTED OCCUPATIONS STUDIED ON AN AREA BASIS BY INDUSTRY DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA OCTOBER

Mrs. PETERSON. Although we do not have specific data on hand, we believe that the bulk of the workers covered by the Defense Bases Act receive wages of $105 or more a week.

We understand that the Navy Department is working out an average salary-wage figure for defense base employees of the Navy Department which may be available soon. The wages were indicated by the Navy to be generally high. References were made to clerk-typist rates ranging upward from $500 a month, warehousemen and buyers, $900 to $1,000 a month, general foremen and foremen, $1,100 to $1,200 a month, assistant supervisors, $1,300 a month, and general managers $2,200 a month.

The wage rates for construction workers vary.

Sentor YARBOROUGH. When that study is available from the Navy, would you send a copy of it to the committee?

Mrs. PETERSON. We will be very pleased to see that that is done. Senator YARBOROUGH. If it is finished before these hearings are completed, we will be able to incorporate it by reference and probably publish the results in summary with this record.

Mrs. PETERSON. I think it would contribute a great deal to the data we have.

An indication of the inadequacy of the $70 weekly maximum now provided by the Longshore Act is further shown by the recently published City Worker's Family Budget as of 1966. This calls for approximately $176 weekly income as a moderate standard of living for a family of four. Eighty percent of this is for goods and services. Under the present maximum, a family of four headed by a disabled worker would have to make do on little more than one-third; namely, 40 percent of this amount.

MINIMUM LIMIT

The minimum limit under the bill will be increased from $18 to $35 a week.

The purpose of the minimum is to allow disabled employees receiving wages approximating the minimum to receive a larger percentage of their wages than higher paid employees. Those receiving wages less than the minimum under the Longshore Act, as in many State acts, will be entitled to their entire wage. Few covered workers fall in this category.

Here I cannot help but remark that I feel this is one of the most important parts of the bill. Certainly the work that Senator Morse and you have done to bring people under coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act shows you are mindful of the great number of people who are living at a wage rate that is very low.

To make it possible for the left-out people who are in the lowest wage level to receive better compensation is certainly important.

In the light of the declared poverty level of $3,300 annually for an average nonfarm family of four and the lowest benefit under any aid for dependent children program under the Social Security Act, $38.70 a week for a family of four in South Carolina, the proposed $35 a week obviously is a minimal subsistence figure.

I may also point out that an employee working 40 hours a week would be required under the Fair Labor Standards Act to be paid $56 a week and that as of 1968 the figure will rise to $64 a week.

I think it is interesting to note here that there are 27 States with higher minimums than we have today in the Longshore Act. So this

proposed minimum is not radical. Higher levels have already been introduced in many of our States. This is true in relation to the maximum limits as well, because there are also States, that have a higher maximum than is in the present bill.

Increase in percentage rate for dependents

The bill proposes an increase in the basic compensation rate from 66% percent to 75 percent where the injured worker has one or more dependents as defined under the Longshore Act. Death benefits in certain cases where there are a number of dependents also will be subject to the augmented 75-percent rate.

It is well recognized that a worker with one or more dependents, or a widow with several minor children, has a greater financial burden to carry than an individual without such obligations. The augmented rate gives recognition to this fact. An identical provision has been part of the compensation program for employees covered under Federal Employees' Compensation Act since 1949.

Here, too, there are, I believe, about 14 States that recognize the principle of augmented compensation for dependents.

EDUCATION BENEFITS

Benefits for a dependent or surviving child will continue under the proposal after age 18 until he reaches 23 years of age if he regularly is pursuing a full-time course of study or training at an approved educational institution.

The existing act terminates benefits for a surviving child when he reaches age 18. This is the age when most children are finishing high school, many of whom may wish to enter college or other educational institutions. The need for training to improve skills and for higher education to develop professional services to meet the growing needs of society cannot be overemphasized.

We would be remiss in our obligation to the family of the injured worker if benefits were terminated or diminished at a time when the need is great.

Certainly, this is one more way to reiterate our belief that our young folk should stay in school and get the maximum amount of education possible. This provision would certainly assist many students.

The need for such an educational provision in a comprehensive benefits program has been acknowledged by the Congress in the veterans' laws, the old age and survivors and disability insurance title of the Social Security Act, and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

CONTINUING WAGE LOSS PAYMENTS

The Longshore Act, as most compensation acts, contains a schedule specifying the number of weeks' compensation payable for a permanent loss or loss of use of certain designated parts or functions of the body, but wage loss thereafter is not provided for. Awards under the schedule are paid irrespective of wage loss, which is otherwise the determining factor in awards.

As a practical matter, however, the injured worker's earning capacity is often significantly impaired by the permanent effects of an injury compensable under the schedule.

S. 2485 corrects the present inequity which flows from compensation cutoff despite diminished earning power. It allows an employee to