Page images
PDF
EPUB

knowledge, which I do not possess. I believe this, that if it gets to the point that you have in mind, that it is the experience of the Postal Service that what a private employer would term or designate as the "turn-over," is very high in the Postal Service. I believe that it has been stated that the turn-over in the period of seven years in the Postal Service will be as high as 10 per cent, meaning that that number of employees are constantly going out.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that the employees that go out are largely younger men who seek other employment?

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. Another actuary, Mr. Landis, who furnished a very illuminative report on this subject several years ago, submitted figures showing that the men under 10 years of service were constantly seeking opportunities to benefit themselves, and that, as a result, the Government was constantly losing this large percentage of men whom it had taken up to that point and trained in the work which, of its very nature, can only be of benefit to the employee in the civil service, if he remains long enough. The experience that he acquires there is useless in any other walk of life, or in any other employment, because, of necessity, the Postal Service of our country must be monopolistic and must be treated by the Government as such, and that is a satisfactory reason why I think the responsibility rests with the Government, particularly in the case of postal employees, to take care of them, because they have trained them in work which has unfit them for any other work.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, take it in the letter-carrier service. Have you noticed whether or not certain postmasters in caring for a carrier 60 years old do not give him quite as hard a route as the carrier 40 years old gets?

Mr. ROGERS. Thank God that is true; that is undoubtedly true. Many postmasters, and I am glad to say that they are still in the majority, are constantly trying to ease the burden of some of these older carriers, to make it possible for them to remain in the service. The CHAIRMAN. If it is true that the average age of the employees in the civil service is increasing, does it not seem to you that that in time will lower the efficiency of the service?

Mr. ROGERS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that is conceded by all who are familiar with the situation. I think that all who have advocated the necessity for retirement legislation, not only in the Postal Service but in every branch of the Government, have conceded that. President Taft has acknowledged it in his report, which he submitted at the time that he submitted to Congress the report of the Economy and Efficiency Commission. He called attention to the great loss that the Government was sustaining because of keeping on its pay rolls so many superannuated employees, and yet none of the Cabinet officers-I will not say none, but fortunately the great majority of the Cabinet officers will not take the position of being responsible for separating these old employees from the service, and Congressmen, it must be remembered that our institution of civil service, the classified civil service in this country is of comparatively young date, and each year, as it grows older, the percentage of superannuation, of necessity, is bound to increase, and the necessity for meeting this question.

The CHAIRMAN. Your view, then, is that the necessity for a pension law now is much greater than it was 10 years ago?

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely, much greater.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, if it is greater, it must be because the age of the employees is increasing?

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely; yes, sir.

Mr. OAKEY, M. C., of Connecticut. I just want to register as being in favor of this bill. I will not take up your time. I could not add anything to the splendid address I have just listened to, but I came in to register as being in favor of the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. FARR, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to express myself as being heartily in favor of this bill, and I trust that the committee will report it favorably. I think it is a just and humane measure, and something that ought to have been in effect a long time ago. There is a strong growing sentiment in favor of legislation of this kind. I have noticed in my own district, while I have always been favorable to the principle involved in this measure, a tendency very strongly in favor of the Government looking after its employees, as the great corporations, separate from the Government, are doing. In the city of Scranton, where I reside, the policemen and firemen are pensioned. I feel, as I said before, that this measure is in the interest of humanity and justice, and I hope that it will be forwarded to the House and that Congress will pass it.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY H. PRATT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Mr. PRATT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not wish to take your time. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the address of the preceding speaker, which thoroughly covers the ground in every respect. I appear simply to urge your honorable committee to report this bill. I have had 12 years experience in the Postal Service, 4 as assistant postmastmaster and 8 as postmaster, and I am a thorough believer in the wisdom of this bill, and in the justice of it, and I think that this Government should not be behind the great industrial corporations of the land which are coming to take note of the necessity of retiring their old, faithful employees.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT CROSSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not want to insist that I know of the technical features that should go into this bill, because that is a part of the committee's work. I do believe that something of this general character should be reported to the House, so that we Members who are interested in these things--and I believe we know something about the conditions

of the Railway Mail Service and the City Delivery Service-may have an opportunity to vote on and discuss the question.

I know a great many of these boys in my town. All of them are high-class men, and men who, it seems to me, would do well in any private work, considering the diligence which they exercise and the good judgment with which they treat the patrons of Uncle Sam. I do not think there is any danger of our doing too much for them. I have often said in speeches before them that my own theory is that the Government should pay these men salary enough so that they can be their own pensioners, and not require them to be placed in a position where, as some people try to claim, they are the objects of charity. There should not be anything of that kind. There should not be an asking for a pension in the true sense of the word. They should be paid something like what their services are really worth. Since we can not do that-and it is apparent we can not; Congress has not yet gotten to that point-I think we should do something that will act as a substitute. It seems to me that this would be a great step in the right direction.

I think that this Government, if it is going to advocate, as is done every day in the House and Senate, fair treatment of the men who must work for a living, should make itself a real model employer. We can not expect private employers to be just and liberal with their employees when we are niggardly. I think, considering the service of a man from one end to the other-from the time he enters the service to the time he quits and gets ready for the grave-he is not getting enough. As I look at it, it is like paying him back salary if we provide some compensation for him upon his retirement by the Postmaster General or someone else.

I do not know that I can add anything to what has already been said. I say that I would prefer that wages be paid to the employee during the whole time he is working which would enable him to get in the long run what he would get from his wages plus a pension. If we can not have that, let us have this substitute.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS F. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST-OFFICE CLERKS.

Mr. FLAHERTY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you and urge this committee take some action relative to the situation that is confronting the superannuated employees of the Postal Service. It is a situation that is most acute, a situation that is not confined to any particular geographical boundary.

My work in organization activities has in the past year taken me to different parts of this country, and I have come in personal contact with the men in the service, and I know from personal observation how acute is the situation.

You will recall that here in Washington, D. 22 aged clerks were separated from the service. nuation problem pure and simple.

C., a short time ago,
That was a superan-

A few months later I happened to be in the city of Chicago and came in personal contact with collectors of mail who, by reason of a change in the assignments had to suffer salary reductions of $100

or $200. That was another problem of superannuation, pure and simple. Because some one had discovered that the majority of these men doing the collecting work were old men, the idea was conceived that possibly certain economies might be effected by reducing the standard of pay for this particular work.

In San Francisco last October-and I mention this case specifically because it made quite an impression upon me, and it has been making an impression upon others with whom I have discussed it-there came into the headquarters of our organization a clerk who, upon that day, October 15, had completed 50 years of service in the San Francisco post office. He entered the service on October 15, 1865. Just visualize that date, if you can. It was about six months after Grant and Lee had sheathed swords at Appomattox. This man was then in the full vigor of virile manhood. Since that time he has given toward the service upkeep, toward its perfection, its maintenance, his brain, brawn, and nerve force. He has given everything which men in our line of life have to give. It is through his efforts and the efforts of countless thousands like him in offices throughout the country-the efforts of men working behind the scenes, unknown and unhonored that this service is what it is to-day, possibly the most efficient of any governmental institution performing its varied and multifarious functions with almost invariable accuracy. Old Father Time, as we call him, has affected this man, has dimmed his eyes, has stooped his shoulders, and has turned him from a young man into an old man. After 50 years of actual service he was forced to send in his resignation, and if you will step into the salary-allowance division you will see opposite his name the notation, "Dropped from the rolls without prejudice." That is the reward we have given this particular individual, and his case is by no means an isolated one.

In my report to the last convention of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks I said, under the heading of retirement, that it was a question now of expediency. Whatever form of retirement Congress in its wisdom sees fit to enact into law I think will be satisfactory to most of the civil-service employees.

This bill is sponsored by Mr. Griffin in the House and, I believe, by Mr. Penrose in the Senate. It may not be an entirely ideal measure. I know that there have been some objections voiced. There comes to my mind this possible objection that might arise on the floor of the House: It may include fourth-class postmasters who are now in the civil service. I believe there are some 56,000 of them. For the most part they are men who are well along in years and who might, by being brought within the purview of this act, make it very expensive. I do not know whether the fourth-class postmasters would be classified as employees or whether they would be officials. Aside from that, and in so far as it applies to the Rural Service, the Railway Mail Service, the city carriers, post-office clerks and others in the service, I know that it would bring the desired relief.

I want to incorporate into the record-I will not take the time of the committee to read them-some resolutions adopted at the convention of the American Federation of Labor in San Francisco, Cal.. dealing with this question of superannuation.

RESOLUTIONS ON RETIREMENT ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., NOVEMBER 8 TO 22.

Resolution No. 12.-By Delegate Thomas F. Flaherty, of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks:

Whereas the retirement of superannuated civil-service employees upon service annuities is now generally recognized as justifiable from both a humane and a business standpoint; and

Whereas the United States Government is one of the few in the world that makes no provision for the retirement of its aged civil-service workers, resulting in this condition: men are heartlessly dismissed after years of faithful service, or they are retained upon the pay roll when no longer able to render efficient service; and

Whereas the compensation of Government employees is insufficient to permit of adequate savings for voluntary retirement in old age; Therefore be it Resolved, That this thirty-fifth convention of the American Federation of Labor reaffirm the position taken by previous conventions by indorsing the efforts of affiliated civil-service bodies to secure the enactment of a satisfactory retirement law for superannuated Government workers; and be it further

Resolved, That the legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor be instructed to assist representatives of affiliated civil-service employees in calling the attention of the Sixty-fourth Congress to the urgent need of this legislation.

Resolution No. 34.-By Delegate Hugo Ernst, of the California State Federation of Labor (introduced by instruction):

Whereas the United States is one of the few civilized countries that has no retirement provision for its superannuated civil-service employees; and Whereas the absence of retirement legislation is costly to the Government and to the employees; men are either retained beyond their years of usefulness or they are dismissed after giving their life's work to the service: Therefore be it

Resolved, By the American Federation of Labor in annual convention assembled, that we indorse the efforts of the Federal civil-service employees to secure the early enactment of an equitable retirement measure; and be it further

Resolved, That the executive council is hereby instructed to give all possible aid to affiliated civil-service employees in calling the urgency of this situation confronting aged Government workers to the Sixty-fourth Congress.

I desire also to incorporate in my remarks some observations that I made two years ago before the Committee on Reform in the Civil Service upon this question of retirement:

EXTRACTS FROM HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON REFORM IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, FEBRUARY 20, 1914.

The argument that retirement legislation that we are seeking is class legislation does not, in my opinion, hold good, as far as the postal employees are concerned. If the Government calls into the Postal Service men of a high standard of intelligence, requires of them the strictest kind of discipline in their daily work, their personal habits and general conduct, requires also, in many instances, study and application in learning special work, and fails to give such employees a wage sufficient to provide for old age, it would be inhumane to cast these employees aside when their efficiency falls below an exacting standard. Yet to retain such employees when they are inefficient is not in accordance with the business methods that should prevail in our Government institutions.

There are two solutions of the problem of ridding the service of those who have passed beyond the years of highest efficiency-limited tenure and a retirement or service-annuity system. Limited tenure is not seriously considered by those who have given the question the closest study. Its adoption would be a backward step of the most pronounced type. Capable men would not compete for or accept a Government position with its scant opportunity for promotion and other limitations if its redeeming feature, permanency of place, were

« PreviousContinue »