Page images
PDF
EPUB

difficult problem you have is getting them not to be afflicted with malnutrition because of their personal diet. Mine would rather have a sandwich than have the finest hot meal in town. It is a real problem. The more these children exercise the option in favor of the total lunch, I can see how somebody could take these statistics and make you look bad.

Since there has been some public criticism of your operation about the more affluent student, is there anything you would like to add! Mr. JACOBS. I would like to say that, of course, in the current climate there has been a whole lot of talk about feeding and the school lunch program in Washington and elsewhere. I have just come back from the Northeastern School Lunch Directors' Conference. Believe me, there is nothing that has occupied more of our time than setting down what we can do to remove some of the erroneous images we have.

In the lunch program our business is to feed people, not to eliminate people but to feed them. Food is one of the areas that people complain about. I think all of us realize that. Anyone who has a family, if you have five kids, even for mama's cooking there will be two or three who will not eat certain items.

Of course, it becomes a little more magnified when it happens in our cafeterias. In our lunch program, as other localities are, we are in a terrible bind. We are expected to serve a nutritious, well-prepared meal at 35 cents. We are expected to pay all of our expenses out of the cash register. If we were able to do this with the success some of our critics would like, you would not have anybody to run the school lunch programs. All of us would be with Horn & Hardart or some of these big chains. It is a tremendous problem.

I think you will not find a more dedicated group of people than in our cafeteria workers here in the District. We consider the conditions under which they have to work, and we consider the compensation they receive. I am very much in awe and very, very impressed at how these ladies go about their work and how they do a very good job under the circumstances.

I just believe that a lot of the criticism that we have had pointed our way is not justified by the facts. I would invite any member of this committee to take the time and stop in on some of our schools and see just what is going on there. I think sometimes it is much different from some of the isolated incidents that get a lot of notoriety.

Thank you.

(Off the record.)

Mr. SISK. I know my personal experience has been in contact with the actual people who are dispensing the food and preparing food with these youngsters. They are inclined to take a personal interest in these youngsters and they are quite dedicated to their work. I believe across the country they are some of the lowest paid people anywhere. I certainly have sympathy with the desire to improve the status of many of these people here.

If this bill, as proposed, becomes law, these employees we are talking about in the school lunch program would then become District Government employees and would be subject to regular Wage Board raises and so on in line with other Wage Board employees, and the considerations they enjoy. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. WEINBERG. They would enjoy the same benefits from the standpoint of the way the wages would be set. Whether or not they would eventually become Wage Board, this may happen in time, but the basis for setting wages right now generally is based on the concept of a prevailing wage for school cafeterias in comparable operations.

We made the study nationally and locally. Right now the rates of pay are being worked out between the representatives of these people and the Board of Education. We would, though, set the rates in a similar fashion as we do Wage Board. They may not come up as high because of different jobs.

Mr. SISK. I understand they would fall within a certain classification because of the type duties they perform and the work they do, but for all practical purposes they would be District of Columbia employees in a category similar to other Wage Board employees and the salaries would be set based upon the particular classification and type of work they do.

In other words, they would no longer be employees of the Board of Education. As I understand it at the present time, they are actually employees of the Board of Education, isn't that correct?

Mr. WEINBERG. They are under the Board of Education but they are still employees of the District of Columbia. A teacher may be under the Board of Education but is still an employee of the District of Columbia. These people are under the Board for certain things. For purposes of pay-setting for these employees, this would be with the concurrence of the Commissioner.

Mr. SISK. Who would do the hiring and firing?

Mr. WEINBERG. The schools, sir.

Mr. SISK. For all practical purposes, he will be under complete and total control as far as maintenance of personnel, the hiring and firing, he would be under the Board of Education?

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes, sir, but still would be an employee of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SISK. Are we setting up some peculiar category where they would enjoy some status different from others where they are neither fish nor fowl? I would like to clarify this.

Mr. FLETCHER. There are a number of categories right now in the school system where we set the salaries as Wage Board employees. They work for the Board of Education but we set their salaries. They would become then the same as other Wage Board employees presently working for the schools.

Mr. GUDE. Do you have a cafeteria in the District of Columbia Building and Food Service employees there?

Mr. WEINBERG. Our Food Service employees, sir, are in our institutions and our hospitals.

Mr. GUDE. They are under the appropriation process?

Mr. WEINBERG. That is right, sir.

Mr. GUDE. If you are going to have a uniform policy with regard to a group of workers in the District of Columbia-here you have one group isolated in a special fund and it just makes for much better administration to have them all controlled by the one agency, such as we would accomplish then by this bill.

Mr. HORTON. I am a little bit confused by this also. Following up the questions of the gentleman from California, Mr. Sisk, and also other comments, are these people who are subject to the proposed bill, the Food Service helpers, are they now only under the school system? In other words, are these employees only within the jurisdiction of the school system?

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORTON. How many employees are we talking about?

Mr. FLETCHER. 635.

Mr. HORTON. As I understand the purpose of the Senate bill which is before us, and also the drafted proposal which has been submitted as a substitute, or alternative, as I understand it what you want to do is take these employees who are now paid out of the Food Service Fund, you want to take those employees and put them under the category of employees of the District of Columbia and pay them out of appropriated funds?

Mr. FLETCHER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. HORTON. They will have a classification no different from any other city employees.

Mr. FLETCHER. Under the present system their wages are set by the Board of Education because they come from unappropriated funds, the food funds. Under this it would come under the District Government appropriated funds and therefore we would set the salaries.

Mr. HORTON. Is there some suggestion by you gentlemen as to how they would be classified when they become District employees? Now, when I say "District employees," I am distinguishing between Food Service employees. Is there some kind of classification that you have for them that would be expected when they become District employees? Mr. WEINBERG. One of the things, sir, would be that this group of employees in every city we have surveyed-we have had a response from 19 of the 20 large cities-they treat the cafeteria employees in schools differently. They are generally different hours. They have different types of duties, since they are serving just one meal a day and the classification is based on more limited duties and responsibilities and types of cooking and food service.

On the other hand, we have a large group of employees, approximately 450, which are considered part of the Wage Board category. These people are paid under the prevailing wage system which is based on, not school cafeterias, but different types of firms in the wage area.

For example, when we survey for Wage Board employees, we survey hospitals, restaurants, food service establishments, because the law says that such employees' pay shall be based on rates of pay consistent with the prevailing wage in private industry.

Now, should Congress act on these positions, what we would do then is establish some basis consistent with other types of Food Service employees in the general school area. This is what we have done in our survey.

Mr. HORTON. When you say the general school area, are you talking about Maryland and Virginia, or are you talking about within the District?

Mr. WEINBERG. We would generally set them not only with the rates of pay paid by local school systems, but we would try to get some idea of rates of pay generally paid by other cities in proportion.

Mr. HORTON. The question is, do they work a full day?

Mr. WEINBERG. Our people work a full day. Our school cafeteria employees in the public school system work eight hours a day. They at one time worked six. That has been extended.

Mr. HORTON. Why would their wage comparability be established based on, say, what happens in New York City, Rochester, New York, Buffalo, or Cleveland? Why wouldn't it be based on what is paid to comparable workers in the District of Columbia? You have Food Service work in the District of Columbia now, do you not?

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes, we do, and the basis is whether or not we set the wages in private industry on the basis of our own Food Service, or whether or not these jobs-which are different-should be based on comparability with local school systems and other school systems.

Mr. HORTON. Are there other workers in this category or in this field in the District of Columbia that are not covered by this bill? Your answer is confusing me. You keep talking about different people and you don't classify them. I am not sure who you are talking about. Mr. WEINBERG. The District of Columbia Government has another group of Food Service employees.

Mr. HORTON. I understand.

Mr. WEINBERG. And they are the employees working in institutions and hospitals. We also have school cafeteria employees. We don't have the rate-setting

Mr. HORTON. Who is "we?"

Mr. WEINBERG. The District of Columbia, the Board of Education has a group of employees, the school cafeteria employees. The rates of pay for school cafeteria employees in the past has been based principally on the receipts that they were receiving from school lunches.

Mr. HORTON. I understand that. You are talking about the same groups of people. There are two groups of people. It is not clear. There are two groups of people we are talking about. There is one group that is now the subject of these bills that are before us. The proposed bill and the Senate bill. That is one group that is now employed by the Board of Education and they are paid out of a Food Service Fund. Is that right?

Mr. WEINBERG. That is right, sir.

Mr. HORTON. The other group is the group employed by the District of Columbia who are paid out of appropriated funds?

Mr. WEINBERG. That is right.

Mr. HORTON. They do comparable work, is that right?

Mr. WEINBERG. To a point, yes.

Mr. HORTON. Do they have eight hours also, the District employees? Mr. WEINBERG. They have eight hours.

Mr. HORTON. The District employees who are in the same line of work, do they put in the same number of hours generally?

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. Aren't the District employees classified by category like G-10, 12, 5, 6, 7, or something like that?

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. Why wouldn't these just be transferred to that type of classification rather than talking about establishing salaries and the like?

Mr. WEINBERG. Eventually they may be able to.

Mr. HORTON. What is the problem?

Mr. WEINBERG. One of the problems is the difference in the types of jobs that are being performed.

Mr. HORTON. That is what I am trying to find out. What are the types of jobs that are different? You just indicated they are comparable and now you say they are different. I am not sure I understand.

Mr. WEINBERG. They are comparable in that they are both in Food Service Work. You brought up the question of classification. We have cooks under the Board of Education. We have cooks who are working in our institutions that are hospitals. But just because they have the same title doesn't mean they are performing the same work. There is a wide degree of difference in the cook in a school

Mr. HORTON. If you have secretaries in one category that are working in one area and you have secretaries over in the other, some are working hard and some are sitting there not doing anything, but they are still doing comparable jobs and they get the same pay.

Mr. WEINBERG. I wasn't trying to say one wouldn't be working hard and the other one would be.

Cooks, for example, in a hospital, must be diet cooks. He has three meals to take care of. They are a lot more difficult to prepare.

A cook in a school has one meal to prepare. It is a very limited menu and the difficulty of the two jobs is much different.

Mr. HORTON. Then you are talking about a different classification. They are not comparable.

Mr. WEINBERG. They are a different classification. They only comparability is that they are dealing in Food Service and that is all.

Mr. HORTON. Is there before this committee a proposal with regard to how they will be classified if and when they come over to the District? Mr. WEINBERG. There is no specific proposal.

Mr. FLETCHER. They would retain the classification they presently have under the school system. We would simply look at the ability to bring them together. We have not been able to do that because they have not been under our Personnel Department.

Mr. HORTON. When they come under your jurisdiction, then you would look at it?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORTON. With reference to the present salary schedule that was submitted with your statement and the proposed salary schedule, I note that the cafeteria helper under the "A" classification, in the pres ent schedule, earns $1.35 an hour. That is below the present minimum D.C. Wage. I understand there is an exemption for D.C. Government employees in the D.C. minimum wage act, but the minimum wage is $1.40 per hour for the District and goes to $1.60 an hour in February, 1969, so food service wages would be substantially off that established by the minimum wage act.

Mr. FLETCHER. February, 1968, sir. We are proposing to go retroactive February of this year, sir.

Mr. HORTON. That is the proposal, but I am talking about the pres ent salary schedule. If this bill doesn't go through, you are not going to be able to increase their pay. Is that right?

Mr. FLETCHER. The only way it could be done would be for the Board of Education to increase their salaries and to increase the price of the school lunches.

« PreviousContinue »