Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Senators and to us during the last 2 or 3 weeks, indicating that they also are of the same opinion, that they want to be eliminated and excluded.

Senator CONNALLY. Was that originated by a sort of a propaganda public relations poll of all these people that sent these letters in?

Mr. RICHARDSON. No, sir; it was a policy that started in 1940. Senator CONNALLY. Each fellow just had the urge to write? He did not have any suggestion from your organization?

Mr. RICHARDSON. No. I won't say that.

Senator CONNALLY. What will you say? I am asking you.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I am trying to say it, if you please.

Senator CONNALLY. I ask you if it was not true that all these letters, this wagonload of letters, were not inspired by an organized drive, sort of a propaganda proposition. There is nothing wrong in it, but I just wanted to know if that is true.

Mr. RICHARDSON. They were inspired by the fact that our organization since 1940 has been interested in this, since the original Wagner amendment was presented to the Senate. And our organization and the American Federation of Labor at that time opposed the inclusion of firemen and policemen. In each convention since, we have endorsed that policy. And when the bill was being prepared for the House last year, we assisted in the writing of the exclusion. We advised our members at that time to advise the members of the Ways and Means Committee that the bill was there and that there would be a possibility that there would be opposition to that provision.

When the bill came before your Senate committee, here, I talked with Senator George, and we told him we could get thousands of letters asking that firemen be exempted. We agreed that was not nec

essary.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope I did not mislead you, Mr. Richardson. Mr. RICHARDSON. And for that reason we advised our locals to just advise their Senator that they were against the including of firemen in the bill.

Now, no later than this morning we took it up with the social security committee of the American Federation of Labor, who endorsed the bill in the House, with the exclusion of firemen and policemen, and they are going to come before you and endorse the position which we are asking you to endorse, to exclude us from the provisions of the bill, because more than 95 percent of our members have pension systems which they feel are adequate to take care of their

wants.

We are fearful that if social security is made possible it will bring about eventually the elimination of the pension systems which we have, which we believe are particularly fitted to our occupation, because of early retirements, hazards that are involved in our occupation, that cannot be provided for in an over-all social-security bill.

So I say to you quite frankly, it is a simple thing we are asking you to do: to exclude us, and to restore, for example, on page 79 after line 13 of H. R. 6000, the simple words that "such agreement shall not provide for the inclusion of any such services performed by an individual in the course of his employment as a policeman or fireman." If that was inserted on page 79, after line 13, we would be happy to see the bill passed, with all of the other features you want to add to it. or as passed by the House.

60805-50-pt. 3- 4

The CHAIRMAN. I believe most of the witnesses who have appeared before us say that under your retirement system the firemen retire generally at a much younger age than 65.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is 55 or 60, I believe.

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is right; 55, generally.

The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-five, generally. The policemen also, of course, retire at a younger age.

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is because of the extreme hazards of your occupation.

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is definitely the reason we believe that our present situation covers us so well.

Now, we are dividing the time allotted to us; we have here our international president, and we have the distinguished president of our Ohio Fire Fighters Association, Bob Lukens; and the president of our New York local, John Crane; the president of our Detroit local; and the president of our Chicago local, James McGuire. They are all here, and we are trying to expedite the matter. I do not want to take up a lot of time.

Senator TAFT. I want to ask one question. Is this coverage universal?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Practically. There may be a few small communities-and it would not exceed 2,000 as a total, Senator Taftwhere firemen are not covered by some type of pension. And we believe that in the course of a short time if you eliminate this belief that there is at the moment in some cities that social security is going to be enacted to cover everybody, and if that was out of the way and they knew they would be excluded, we could have legislation, which the present situation is now causing to be postponed, which would be adequate to cover them, very shortly.

Senator TAFT. How much turn-over is there among fire fighters? Mr. RICHARDSON. Very, very little. I think you understand that the employment age of entry is from 21 to probably 30, as an average; and if in that period they do not make good they leave the department to go into some covered employment. But after they pass age 30, there is very little change of employment.

Senator TAFT. Önce a fireman, always a fireman.

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is right. He takes the time to acquire the knowledge and technical skill to become an expert, and once he acquires it he is more valuable to the city.

Senator CONNALLY. Under these retirement plans that you already have, the voluntary plans, do the employers contribute to the fund? Mr. RICHARDSON. In most of the cases, Senator, yes. They contribute from 5 to as much as 12 and 14 percent. Even in New York City, the employer contributes, and the employee contributes up to 12 percent in New York City. In Cincinnati they contribute up to 8 or 9 percent, or they used to.

Senator CONNALLY. Is that a State law?

Mr. RICHARDSON. A State law; and then there is a municipal act covering it. In 90 percent of our pension plans, there are employee contributions and employer contributions.

Senator KERR. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Kerr.

Senator KERR. What percentage of those covered are protected by legislation making the State the one responsible for the payment of the benefits?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Very few. In fact, I know of none in which the State has the responsibility of paying the benefits. The State enacts the legislation which provides the method by which the taxes, or the tax, shall be collected. In the State of Ohio, there is $1,600,000 contributed by the State to the municipalities to supplement the funds which are collected from the employees and the employer, namely, the city.

Senator KERR. Then what percentage of the employees, firemen I am talking about, are employed by municipalities where you feel that they may know that they are secure in that they will get the benetits which are contemplated?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, I believe that practically 99 percent of the pension funds that are in existence may not be actuarially sound, but they are so sound that the municipality itself will see that the pension that is due will be paid when the men become eligible to get it.

Senator KERR. What percentage of your employees are in communities of less than 25,000? Take it over the Nation.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, in communities of less than 25,000, you probably have less than 20 percent of the total paid firemen in the country. You see, you get into the volunteers, from 10,000 down.

Senator KERR. Are there not so many more small communities than large ones that a greater percentage of your employees over-all would be in communities of 25,000 or less?

Mr. RICHARDSON. No, Senator. Because between 10,000 and 25,000 population, for each city in that category, there would be from 10 to 25 firemen. There would be 25 firemen in a city of 25,000 population, one per thousand, or slightly less. So that when you take New York, with 11,000, Detroit with 2,500, Chicago with 3,800, you can add them up, and the large cities are largely the area in which you get the great number of firemen.

Senator KERR. What is your estimate of the total number in the country?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Oh, it is 92,000, total. Within 500 I can tell you exactly.

Senator CONNALLY. Those are paid firemen ?

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is right.

Senator CONNALLY. You are not talking about the fellow who wears the uniform and goes to the State convention of firemen ?

Mr. RICHARDSON. There are nearly 600,000 of those, Senator; 200,000 in Pennsylvania, and quite a few in Texas, a lot of my friends down there.

Senator KERR. Do you think, then, from the standpoint of the security and getting the benefits that are contemplated, they are adequately protected?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir. And I am trying to reflect their opinion to you in an honest and sincere way.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Richardson.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John P. Redmond.

Mr. Redmond, you may be seated and identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. REDMOND, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Finance Committee, my name is John P. Redmond. I am president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which represents 80,000 active fire fighters in the United States and Canada in over 900 cities.

The International Association of Fire Fighters have, by repeated convention action, gone on record as opposing the extension of coverage under the Social Security Act to the fire fighters of the United States.

The fire fighters of the United States at present have retirement, annuity, and pension systems in the 48 States, which are not only adequate but the benefit provisions are more liberal than the provisions of the Social Security Act as contemplated in H. R. 6000.

The fire fighters of the United States have been provided, through State statutes and city ordinances as long ago as the year of 1875, with pension protection, and this helped to build the efficiency and morale of our fire departments so that they could cope with that ever present menace of fire which before the turn of the century destroyed great segments of many of our cities.

To open the door by allowing the proponents of social security to conduct referendums would instill into the minds of the fire fighters that the construction of their present pension security would be destroyed and eventually social unsecurity would replace that which they have labored for over 75 years to secure. Instead of a young man entering into the fire-fighting service and making a life career of this profession, his job of the future would be a stopping place on the highway of life until he could secure a better and more profitable position. The now prevailing pension systems throughout the United States have reduced the turn-over in personnel to a very minimum. The very few withdrawals from the fire departments have been caused by disablement in the performance of duty and retirement because of age and service.

To do anything which would cause the disruption of this smoothworking arrangement of one of the most essential services in any community, would be disastrous, as every incipient fire is a potential conflagration, and fire out of control destroys everything in its path and cannot be controlled except by natural barriers. Floods will recede, but fire out of control is an all-destroying force.

Therefore, on behalf of the citizens of the communities we serve, we urgently request that H. R. 6000 be amended as follows:

Strike out on page 80, line 19, after the word "system," all of item (C) in subsection (5).

Strike out on page 82 beginning on line 10, section 218 (d) to and including line 17, page 83, and substitute therefor the following paragraph:

Such agreement shall exclude all public employees in positions covered by a retirement system, as previously defined in subsection (B) (4) of this section. The fire fighters for generations have been underpaid, and have been compelled to work long hours and cannot afford the cost of additional protection offered by social security.

It would be difficult to persuade the State and municipal governments-the employers-to continue to support their local retirement systems at present levels.

Many States have tax-limitation laws and as pensions are tied in with salaries and the limit has been reached, it would mean that in the event H. R. 6000 passes in its present form, new sources of revenue would have to be provided to meet the additional cost of social security. As the present source of revenue is just enough to provide a very low salary and the cost of the present retirement systems, any additional cost without additional revenue would mean reduction of salaries, reduction of retirement benefits, and longer years of service. This would result in over-aged fire departments, larger fire losses, greater loss of life, and injuries atendant to fires, with eventual additional cost for fire-insurance premiums.

If the present bill is so essential to those who now have retirement systems, I would suggest that an additional appropriation be provided by the Congress of the United States so as not to impoverish the various subdivision of State governments who are slowly being paralyzed by taxation by the National and State governments.

Gentlemen, I submit this because of the fact that, being associated with the fire-fighting service as a member of it for 34 years in the city of Chicago, and being a trustee of the firemen's pension fund for 17 years, I realize how important the role is that a pension plays, what an important factor pensions are, in maintaining the morale and efficiency of the fire departments throughout the country. To impair them in any way, shape, or form would not only reduce the morale and the efficiency of the fire departments but work a hardship generally upon the people of the community. Because each individual fire fighter realizes, when he goes into a building, that every building has its hazards today aside from the attendant hazards that we had years ago, such as carbon monoxide. We have such additional hazards today as volatile oil, nitrocellulose, plastics, and various other things that explode at a low heat point. And the result is that they would stay outside of the buildings, the losses would increase, and naturally the loss of life. If our pension funds are destroyed, that is exactly what will occur. And, of course, they will be destroyed, in some of the States where the tax-limitation laws are now in effect, because they cannot add this additional 3 percent without reducing the present benefits that they are getting from pensions or reducing the salaries of the fire fighters in the present locality.

I have here a list of some of the cities. Here is a survey that we have made in 1948, covering nearly all the cities in the United States. I will leave this with the committee. There are 69 questions propounded in that survey relating to pension funds, so that we can arrive at a safe and sane method of securing additional legislation at the State levels.

For the benefit of the committee and to show you exactly what we have to contend with, taking some of the cities, spot checking, between 30,000 and 10,000, 18 cities, the average fire fighter works 74 hours and at an average hourly rate of 49 cents an hour. If you reduce that again by 112 cents, you will bring his salary down to about 472 cents an hour, which is not sufficient at this day and age. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to leave that for the record?

« PreviousContinue »