NEW LONDON, CONN., January 12, 1967. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN. Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I would like to congratulate you on your proposed legislation regarding coercion of federal employees and servicemen, as recently reported by the A.P. news service. At various times during my 22 years of federal service I have been "pressured" in varying degrees and I have exerted pressure, for bond drives, United Funds and other worthwhile endeavors. The most recent of these worthwhile activities is absentee voting, where we are trying to achieve maximum participation, and in the process we are pressuring people to request ballots. In all cases the objectives are certainly worthwhile and most commendable. The "arm twisting" to obtain these desirable goals appears to me to be getting progressively worse, and I think it is now time to put a stop to it. I would recommend legislation to stop any hint of coercion and also to prohibit superior commands from publishing statistical comparisons of their subordinate units in such "voluntary" undertakings. I believe these bar-graphs and percentage tabulations lead directly to the offensive coercion. Again, thank you for your efforts in behalf of servicemen and federal employees. Yours truly, PRESTON, GA., January 20, 1967. Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am very interested in your legislation to end coercion during charity and U.S. Savings Bond drives. For goodness sake keep the penalties in the bill. I am an employee at the Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Ga. I bought Savings Bonds under the payroll deduction plan for eleven years. During January of 1966 they got five weeks behind with my bond. No one could give me a satisfactory answer as to why they were behind. After approximately four months I contacted the head of payroll section. They stated they knew I was five weeks behind but didn't know whether they would ever catch it up. They said Charleston Navy Yard, where the Bonds were issued, had changed their system. I then discontinued buying bonds on the payroll savings plan. I began to buy a $50 bond at my bank every pay period, at the time I deposited my check. Shortly after this they had a Savings Bond drive here. I explained that I was buying bonds at my bank and that I quit the payroll deduction plan because of their inefficiency. I was called in by two top supervisors and received the usual arm twisting. However, I did not go back to the bond payroll deduction plan and have no intention of doing so. As of this date, a report goes to the Division Director, who is a Marine Corps Colonel, each month with the names of all people who are not taking bonds on the payroll deduction plan, listing them as nonparticipants. I am listed as a nonparticipant, even though I have over $4,000 in Savings Bonds and buy a $50 Bond every two weeks from the bank. Frankly, I didn't think the Government cared where you bought their Savings Bonds. I have the bonds for anyone to see at anytime they want to. If you want me to, I can send you the serial numbers of my bonds. It has been made pretty plain that I will not be considered for any promotion unless I join the bond payroll deduction plan and my job would be more secure if I joined. I served in the U.S. Army from 1938 through 1945 with service in Europe during World War II. I love my country and know that my loyalty cannot be questioned. However, I don't like to be harassed when I'm doing all I can to support my country. What goes on here and is still going on is unbelievable. You may use this letter in any way you see fit, especially if you have occasion to consult Senator Richard B. Russell concerning your legislation. Yours truly, 86-625-67 JANUARY 18, 1967. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I read with considerable interest about the bill you have introduced to protect Government employees against compulsion to buy bonds etc. I want to congratulate you on your initiative. A bill like this has been needed for a long time. But, more important, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for declining to submit to the Pentagon the names of the people who complained. I only wish there were more representatives who felt as you do. Perhaps it would take some of the futility out of the lives of career servicemen and give them one of their rights which most of them are now afraid to take advantage of the right to protest. I have been married to a career marine for eight years, and in that time I have seen injustices done which no civilian would put up with for a second. "Write to your Congressman" I've said to many a Marine, including my own husband, only to be pounced upon like I had said "dig your grave and jump in." Most of them feel the consequences aren't worth it, and usually, they are not. A few years ago when we were stationed in Hawaii a friend of mine was living in low-cost housing at the base at Kaneohe. After one of our so called pay raises, they raised the rent on the low-cost housing from $80 a month to $105 which is full quarters allowance. E-5 and below were paying the same price for houses which were the next thing to slums that the higher ranks including officers were paying for beautiful ranch-type quarters. I thought she had a good complaint. Write to your Congressman I said. And she did, she wrote to two of them. As for me, I'll never give that advice again. When her husband was passing through D.C. last year he stopped to check his record book and there big and plain for all the world to see, including the promotion boards, were all the letters his wife had written to our so called representatives. The Marine Corps especially seems to be guilty of Mafia-like tactics. It seems that they can get you for anything they don't happen to like, including "ratting to your Congressman" on the article or law known as "Conduct unbecoming to a Marine." It seems to me that it's about time service men started to get a few of the rights and liberties it is their job to protect for others. The first on the list as far as I'm concerned is the right to protest without fear of reprisal. Again, thanks. It's good to know we have a friend out there. We are going to be permanent residents of North Carolina soon and it will be our pleasure to vote for you. If I were writing this to any other member of Congress, I'd probably chicken out and sign it anonymous, but in view of your record, I'll chance my name. Sincerely yours, JANUARY 18, 1967. SENATOR ERVIN: A note in the Washington Post of 17 January about coerced contributions to charity and savings bond drives in the military leads me to write about my experiences. Navy Relief is a fine charity, but the Marine Corps fills its coffers by questionable methods. The last Navy Relief drive was going slowly, so the enlisted men in my company were paid in cash one payday in mid-drive. Each man had to go to the company commander, who spent all day, with the help of a sergenat, counting money. I stood in line a few minutes, gave my name to the sergeant, who called out the amount I was to be paid, which was a dollar less than my usual pittance. I objected to the company commander, who, after giving me a look like Benedict Arnold's CO must have given him, gave me my pay in full. The Navy Relief drive before the one described above was a worse affront. After going through the pay line, I was given five dollars more than my normal pay. I wasn't told the reason-who asks why pennies fall from heaven? I was on my way out of the company office when the first sergeant yelled at me to come back. He growled something about Navy Relief. When I said I didn't want to contribute he began deriding me as a divisive influence in the company, the sort of man who keeps the others from standing solid behind the 100 per cent contribution goal. He concluded his remarks with a contemptuous, "Get out of here and don't come back." When I wasn't promoted along with others in the company of similar longevity and proficiency, I could trace at least one cause back to the Navy Relief drive. I have no doubt this sort of things goes on in every unit on every base in every service. One reason for it is that a unit quota concept leads to a man-quota concept. Do away with the requirement that each unit produce so many dollars and cents, and you escape the tendency to dragoon each man for his "share" of the unit's quota. No grievance procedure works without the power of solidarity held by the aggrieved. And the only union among the lower enlisted ranks is the union of the upon. All written complaints have to go through the office whose idiocy provoked the complaint. So even if the complaint produces a change, the complainer is marked as a "troublemaker." The result is the choice between paying off the company with a dollar for Navy Relief and standing up for your rights and heading the work detail list. I'm getting out in 61 days, so the situation no longer reduces me to black impotent anger. But it's like the napalmed children of Viet-Nam-I'm not directly involved, but I'd like to see something done. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. ANN ARBOR, MICH., January 20, 1967. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for your letter of January 17 replying to my letter of December 13 outlining some of my experiences with Savings Bond and Charity drives while serving in the Army. It may be useful for you to know that besides experiencing the situations outlined in my letter, I observed that much of the pressure exerted by the Executive (it was and still is my understanding that the pressure to show 100% "voluntary" participation in Savings Bond drives originates at the White House) is futile. A substantial percentage (my guess would be of the order of magnitude of % to 2) of the soldiers I knew who did purchase a bond to please their commanding officer cashed them in at the first opportunity, probably costing the government more in clerical expense than the value of the bond for the few weeks it was outstanding. In fact, this practice was always suggested to those of us who resisted on principle: “Why do you rock the boat, just take the minimum contribution and cash it in in 60 days-don't be a troublemaker." The rocking of boats, I might add, was cardinal sin number one. Let me assure you that I am not a chronic malcontent; I enjoyed my tour of active duty in the Army, and offer my observations as hopefully constructive criticism. I appreciate the problem of teaching and maintaining discipline in a military organization, but feel rather strongly that the Regular Army Establishment allows "discipline" to be the excuse for riding roughshod over important democratic values and traditions. I hope these observations are helpful to you. Sincerely, SANTA ANA, CALIF., January 15, 1967 Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., By pressure, a unit commander may obtain 100 percent participation in a bond or charity drive and thus receive a higher grade on his personal fitness report. Many officers and men in the service, including myself, believe that they should buy bonds and contribute to charity. However, it is a different matter when these deeds no longer remain the choice of the individual. I work in a unit that is very highly trained. It costs the United States many thousands of dollars to train and educate the men with whom I serve. But their worth cannot be measured in terms of dollars-they want to serve their country and are willing to risk their very lives for it. No amount of money can buy that! Yet our own organization destroys its morale and privides the "straw that broke the camel's back" with these forced drives. Men of courage do not like to be told that their participation in these drives will be reflected in their fitness reports. If commanders make their men cower to obtain the necessary percentage in a bond drive, what will these same men do when faced by a determined enemy? Very respectfully yours, Captain, USMC. [From the San Diego (Calif.) Evening Tribune, Jan. 12, 1967] U.S. BOND SELLERS FLAYED FOR COERCION-PROMOTIONS DEPEND ON PURCHASE, YANK SERVICEMEN COMPLAIN WASHINGTON.-The files of the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee are bulging with complaints from servicemen and federal employes that they are coerced into buying savings bonds and making charitable contributions. Letters from servicemen tell of being denied promotion and even of being threatened with shipment to Vietnam if they fail to buy bonds. The subcommittee also has received reports of Marine sergeants being sent into the foxholes in Vietnam to sign up fighting men for bond purchases. Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-Ñ.C., subcommittee chairman, has introduced a bill that would, among other things, protect government employes against any form of compulsion to buy bonds or contribute to charity. LEGISLATION NEEDED In a recent letter to Thomas D. Morris, assistant secretary of defense for manpower, Ervin wrote: "It is becoming glaringly apparent that legislation is needed to protect servicemen as much-or more so-as it is to protect civilian personnel." Morris said the defense department not only does not authorize coercion of civilian and military personnel to buy savings bonds or contribute to charitable campaigns but has not and will not condone such coercion. COMPLAINTS MANY Ervin replied "the numerous complaints from civilian and military personnel throughout the world" indicate that the mere continuance of the Pentagon's support of established grievance procedures is insufficient. The Senator declined to submit to the Pentagon for investigation the names of persons who had complained to the subcommittee. "The risk of reprisals is not worth such an exercise in futility," Ervin wrote. GENERAL QUOTED The Senator's letter said that "a Marine general has been quoted as saying that his men in charge of the bond drive in Vietnam were not deterred from achieving the unit goal." "They went to forward positions and interviewed Marines in fighting holes and kept track of the patrols so that every individual had an opportunity to hear how he could invest his money in a worthwhile savings program," he quoted the general as saying. Ervin added: ". . . I find this story grotesque." PURCHASE IS AUTOMATIC The Treasury Department said 1,427,602 servicemen were enrolled in payroll savings plans where bonds are automatically purchased and the price is deducted from pay as of last Sept. 30. It said the percentage of those enrolled, compared with total strength, varied widely among the services. BREAKDOWN LISTED As of Sept. 30, the Army had 84 per cent enrollment with 765,133 active participants followed by the Air Force with 45.3 per cent or 392,542 participants. The Navy and Marine Corps combined had 27.2 per cent participation. The Department said, with 201,637 Navy personnel and 68,290 Marines taking part. Öf federal civilian employees, 73.8 per cent or 1,687,129 persons were enrolled in the payroll savings program as of Sept. 30, the Department added. During the first nine months of 1966, the Department said, $648.1 million in bonds were bought by federal employes both civilian and military under payroll savings. Civilians bought $445.2 million and the military $202.9 million. SOUTH BEND, IND., January 25, 1967. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have read that you and the members of your Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee are trying to introduce legislation that would protect government employees, and especially servicemen, from the type of coercion represented in the letter I am enclosing. May I thank you, and offer my full support for your efforts? As I am sure you must realize, this type of legislation is very difficult to enforce, but despite what Mr. T. D. Morris of the DoD says, the pressure comes from the Pentagon, and in the long run, through lowered morale and especially, reduced enlistments, it has a very detrimental effect on the services. Sincerely yours, NAVAL AIR STATION, OCEANA, U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, OCEANA, : The President has asked that each member of the federal service, military and civilian, subscribe to the U.S. Savings Bonds Program through the payroll deduction plan. Through this plan you can get a bond for as little as $6.25 withheld each month; receiving an $18.75 bond every three months. The purpose of the campaign is to reduce spending and thus slow the upward drive of costs-in other words, inflation. With members of the federal service supporting the program, the general public will be encouraged to join, too, For those of you who are economists, I need not remind you of the reverse multiplier effect caused by buying government bonds. The small amount invested by each individual can help when multiplied by millions of participants. Also, lest we all forget, our President has asked this: and he is the one at whose pleasure we hold our commissions, serve, and are promoted. In personnel administration, study reveals that to get work done, to provide esprit and achieve morale in an organization, support must be in two directions. The business provides equitable, safe, and reasonable conditions of work. Those who then take the job are expected to carry out the requirements of it as a condition of work. For a commissioned officer, this could include participation in saving programs such as that being requested by the President. Enclosed is a form to assist you in your decision. Just write the name of the co-owner, his or her address, and sign your name. Then turn in, in an envelope, to your Head of Department. Won't you join me? I have my small bond deduction. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have read many articles about your strong feelings against coercion in bond drives and various charities. Presently I am stationed at Shaw Air Force Base, assigned as a jet engine mechanic. My unnecessarily bad experience with just such a bond drive may to some be unimportant, but to me the freedom to choose is most important. Because I chose not to participate in the bond drive I have suffered the consequences, humiliation, promotion and almost my self-respect. One person standing alone cannot combat the overwhelming superior forces of our service. Buying United States Savings bonds is not the subject in which I object; it is the procedure in which they are presented to men in all branches of the service. Individuals who are in charge of filling their bond quotas specify that you have free choice in deciding to buy or not to buy a bond, even when it's the 12, 15 or 25th time you are approached; they specify you have a free choice, but religiously they come, always asking the same question, "Why not?" We have a free choice, but it had better be yes to get along in our service system. Right now we are engaged in a war in Vietnam, military men are losing their lives to stop communist aggression so that we may live in a free society. Is it a free society if we cannot choose to buy or not to buy a savings bond. If this ugly monster of coercion is not exterminated from the service, where will it end? Will I have to go to the church of military choice, will the Government choose my wife and how big my family should be? Being in the military we are obligated in our actions and thoughts to an extent, but we must draw the line somewhere or else it's not just the military system, it's just plain old-fashioned dictatorship. |