(8) It provides the Army and Air Force with a tool to downgrade employees during times of cutbacks.

The effects of job evaluation upon the general welfare of our society is discernible as it affects the supply of skilled workers. It tends to discourage bona fide apprenticeships, and therefore reduces the reservoir of overall skilled workers so that in the event of a future crisis, a serious shortage of skilled manpower would result.

Nowhere in the Army-Air Force wage-fixing system is provision made for employee labor organizations to participate in the wage fixing procedures.

We would be less than completely frank with this committee if we did not voice our very real fears that this bill, if passed, would represent a long step toward the achievement of a central wage board plan which we all know the administraiton has been encouraging for the past 5 years.

May we recall to this committee the fact that in December 1953, the Civil Service Commission drafted and circulated among the various Government departments a document entitled "A Coordinated Pay System for Trades, Crafts, and Labor Occupations."

In brief, the Commission endeavored to make out a case for legislation to give the Civil Service Commission authority to coordinate pay rates and practices of all Federal agencies, with respect to trades, crafts, and labor positions.

Also, that the Commission be given authority to prescribe pay plans, establish pay scales and adjust them, and to prescribe standards for placing positions at appropriate pay levels (job evaluation).

The Commission frankly recognized in its own proposal that—

A general governmentwide pay plan designed to cover the bulk of prevailing-rate employees would almost necessarily be based on job-evaluation principles, and would be generally similar, though perhaps varying in many details, to the plan adopted by the Army-Air Force wage board.

The Commission thereafter obtained on loan from the Department of Army, the Chief of the Salary and Wage Administration Division of the Army, William F. Sorenson, Jr. He was loaned to the Commission in April 1954 to assist in developing a plan for a coordinated wage administration program.

Thereafter in October he was appointed as special assistant to the executive director of the Commission with a priority assignment to the further development of a proposed new Federal wage program for coordination of Federal wage-board systems.

The Civil Service Commission submitted its proposed central Federal wage board plan to the Metal Trades Department in 1954, and it was carefully studied by the Metal Trades Department and its affiliated international unions and all other interested AFL affiliates.

A union committee of all affected AFL affiliates studied the matter and thereafter the Commission was advised of the unanimous and unalterable opposition of all the affiliated unions involved, and the reasons for such opposition.

President George Meany headed a committee of affiliated union representatives which met personally with the Commission and explained the position of organized labor in unalterably opposing any proposed central wage board plan.

Any central wage board plan is wholly incompatible with the objective of obtaining for our members employed in the various branches of the Federal Government, collective bargaining such as is enjoyed by our members employed at Bonneville Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

We believe that none is more qualified to deal with the complex problem of arriving at a fair rate than those directly associated with the problem.

A central wage board would completely submerge the identity of all agencies and departments, and destroy the various approaches which they have worked out, such as in the case of the Navy Department. The proposal to repeal the Navy's wage-fixing authority is a major step toward central wage fixing. It would result in sealing off about 85 percent of all prevailing rate employees under the Defense-ArmyAir Force type of wage determination, with no employee or employee union participation, and with job evaluation this is substantially the type program which the Civil Service Commission informally proposed in its 1954 central wage board plan.

Any such central wage board approach as a solution to the various Government ungraded wage determination programs is just as unrealistic as would be an effort to negotiate one wage schedule for all workers in all manufacturing industries with the National Association of Manufacturers.

We are certain that this committee will recognize the wisdom of continuing to allow each of the agencies of Government the independent autonomy necessary to make wage-rate adjustments consistent with their individual needs and conditions, and will not require an agency to be placed under the domination of a wage determination system which is not designed to meet its needs, and which is highly objectionable to the workers involved.

The pay and classification needs in the various agencies are not necessarily similar in nature. Any attempt to discourage or prevent an agency from continuing to work out its own wage determination procedures in the manner necessary to meet the needs of the agency and in concert with its employees and their employee unions, would be unfortunate and very unwise.

The Navy wage determination system as evolved under statute since 1861 and with its employee and union participation, is a keystone to all nonclassified wage rate determinations.

It is of vital importance in holding in relatively reasonable line and relationships the rate determinations made in agencies which do not have effective employee and employee union participation.

We earnestly urge that this committee make an unfavorable report on H.R. 3367, and we thank the chairman and members of this committee for their kind attention in hearing us at some length on this vital matter.

Mr. RIVERS. I believe we could determine the fate of this bill in this session this morning, if I read the attitude of the feeling of the committee.

I have two proxies here somebody gave me.

We have here our distinguished member of the big committee, Mr. Price, one of our outstanding members, and I would like for you to ask any questions you have, Mr. Price.

Mr. PRICE. Rather than ask a question, I would like to give my personal views on this legislation.

Mr. FISHER. I subscribe fully to the statement made by Mr. Brownlow this morning, and I believe the chairman of this subcommittee has the same views on this subject as I do.

Mr. RIVERS. Well, I have to preside, you know.

Mr. PRICE. Even though I am not a member of the subcommittee, I would like to register for the record objection to this type of legislation.

I would like to ask Mr. Brownlow this question: Over the years would you say that for the most part there has been a harmonious relationship between the Navy and all groups of organized labor because of the present system of employment in the various naval establishments?

Mr. BROWNLOW. By all means.

Congressman Price, our relations with the Navy Department by and large have been of the best.

Naturally, the Administration of the Office of Industrial Relationsthey are not all the same, but in our judgment they have all been fair and our relations have been good.

Mr. PRICE. Would you say this relationship might suffer through the introduction of such a program?

Mr. BROWNLOW. I would say so, because it would inject other elements with whom we have had no direct relations.

Mr. PRICE. I want to commend you on your statement, Mr. Brownlow. As a member of the full committee, I subscribe completely to your views.

Mr. RIVERS. I certainly want to commend you on the fine research you have done on this, too. It surely represents a lot of burning of the midnight oil. I have read your whole statement, and I think it is a very fine compilation and makes a creative statement on your part.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, may I add another thought:

I would think we would have a much happier situation here this morning if we were considering legislation that would bring the Army and the Air Force into the Navy's position.

Mr. BROWNLOW. I would agree with that.

Mr. RIVERS. That is what I asked Admiral Cronin. That would be unification.

I have a lot of things I want to put in the record here that were handed to me by counsel.

Has Carl G. Sandberg of Wakefield, Mass., a wire to the chairman? He is a machinist.

He says a thousand of them oppose it.

I want that for the record.

And we have a statement from Mr. Thomas G. Walters and from Gordon M. Freeman.

Put them in the record.

(The documents above referred to are as follows:)

BOSTON, Mass., February 16, 1959.

Hon. CARL VINSON,

Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
Washington, D.C.:

Approximately 1,000 members Boston Naval Shipyard Machinists, Lodge No. 634, urge your support in opposition to H.R. 3367 which would take away the power of Secretary of the Navy during wage surveys. Our present system very satisfactory to membership of 634.

CARL G. SANDBERG, Recording Secretary.

STATEMENT BY THOMAS G. WALTERS, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Hon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,

FEBRUARY 17, 1959.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, House Armed Service Committee,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 ON H.R. 3367: On behalf of the officers, delegates, and members of the Government Employees' Council I am delighted to appear and testify in opposition to H.R. 3367, which has for its purpose the repeal of the law of 1862 and grants to the Secretary of the Navy the authority to establish rates of wages for certain employees of naval activities.

By way of introduction I am Thomas G. Walters, operations directors of the Government Employees' Council AFL-CIO. The council is made up of 24 national and international unions and associations whose membership, in whole or in part, are Federal and postal employees and represents a membership in excess of one-half million.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to your attention, in our opinion if H.R. 3367 is enacted into law this committee would lose jurisdiction of this type of legislation, as it would be transferred to the Post Office and Civil Service Committees instead of the Armed Service Committees of the Congress.

We are of the definite opinion if H.R. 3367 is enacted into law it would be a major step in the direction of a central wage board and we are 100 percent opposed to the theory of a central wage board plan. We are of the opinion that this would be the first step in the direction of a central wage board, or commission being established to set not only the salaries of blue-collar workers but also the salaries of Federal and postal employees.

A comprehensive statement prepared by the affiliated groups of the Metal Trades Department and the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO, has been presented to this committee and, therefore, I am making my statement very short. I simply desire to be placed on record, that in the Government Employees' Council we are united in our opinion that H.R. 3367 is bad legislation and should be defeated.

Appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee and trust that the recommendations of this subcommittee will be one of disapproval of H.R. 3367.

TESTIMONY OF GORDON M. FREEMAN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, this testimony is being presented in opposition to the intent and purposes as outlined in H.R. 3376.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is an international labor union representing over 750,000 electrical workers, of whom we represent a majority of electrical workers employed by the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense. The IBEW is affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and as such we assisted in the preparation of a "statement" for all of the affiliated international unions. We fully support this statement in opposition to H.R. 3367 as it would repeal section

7474 of chapter 643 of title 10, United States Code, which would, in effect, repeal the act of July 16, 1862, commonly referred to as the Navy's wage-fixing law.

The repeal of this law would do away with the most equitable means of adjusting wage rates for per diem civilian employees in the Department of Defense, and at the same time it would deny these employees labor representation in the adjustment of their wage rates. At the present time these employees are given the opportunity to assist in the gathering of wage data at the local level and representation on the Navy's central wage board here in Washington, D.C.

It would appear that the bill in question was introduced by the Department of Defense, in an effort to unify the method of establishing wage rates for its civilian per diem (blue-collar) workers, to the detriment of its Navy employees. The Navy requires a more skilled type of craftsmen in the various trades and occupations while the job evaluation method of classifying Army and Air Force per diem workers is the most unfair and out-moded method and certainly is not realistic in its approach in establishing wage rates for Navy employees. The present policy of the Navy Department is to endeavor to maintain an equitable relationship between jobs in the same labor market area where the job requirements call for reasonably comparable skills, knowledges, and responsibilities, and where such an internal alinement does not cause too great a departure from the prevailing locality rate. This departure may be up or down.

I trust your committee will give full consideration to the harmful effects which would result from favorable action by your committee and passage by the Congress. The repeal of section 7474 of the law of July 16, 1862, would result in confusion and loss of many of the Navy's most valued employees in the crafts to outside industry where they would be treated equitably.

I want to thank you for being able to make this presentation to your subcommittee in opposition to H.R. 3367. Thanks.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. You heard the colloquy that took place here between the admiral and myself.

I am convinced that this is not going to cost any money. It may raise wages in some areas and slightly reduce them in others. But I am also convinced that it will have an effect upon the relationship between management and labor.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Very definitely so. This probably wasn't completely explained, before.

In the area surveys, though generally because of the makeup of the employees, most of whom are members of unions, they do use employee canvassers or surveyors. It is almost impossible for them to reach into the Navy yard indiscriminately and not pick a union

man.

Consequently, that goes for good relations, and as I mentioned before, those are on the Navy wage committee. That is, the two who are here in Washington are two union men.

Now to arbitrarily eliminate them would certainly cause some disruption and dissatisfaction.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Now as to the value received. As I understand this, the uniformity that the Navy Department seeks here, the value as far as you people are concerned, that is representing labor, would be to create, probably, confusion?

Mr. BROWNLOW. That is right.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. And it is on that basis that you oppose the legislation?

Mr. BROWNLOW. That is right. May I add one word, Mr. Van Zandt: We have considered ourselves the champions of the Navy over the many, many years, and certainly we want to continue being so. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Wampler, have you any questions?