LJALL gnet for the best brains of the Nation. That many Congressmen look askance at this proposition to re at workers is to be expected. Every new idea must fight down th 1 the prejudice of those who oppose it. It took 100 years of gland to overcome the opposition to the public-school system. n 1829-87 years ago—some public-spirited citizens of Philadelp Brotherly Love, attempted to organize a meeting to promote the olic schools, to be supported by general taxation. They were set ice, beaten, and thrown into jail. They were denounced as unde archists. Property owners said it was confiscation to tax one man's propert other man's children. They said it would pauperize parents to e Idren at public expense. People who opposed free public schools said that if parents wh re relieved of paying for the schooling of their children these på come lazy and shiftless. Last year in the United States over $750,000,000, raised by gene as spent on free public schools, and the taxpayers were proud of In 1911 Illinois enacted the first mothers' pension law. Since th ve enacted laws of this nature. The entire tendency of our tim re of the man who has given by his work some contribution to s We need to make our Government service something better than ation for outside vocations. At the present time you can go thr e departments here in Washington and you will find that the mo e high-strung, the ambitious young fellows are studying law or edicine on the outside, with a view to going out into a more lucra nd engaging in that as their life's work. We ought to make our civil service so attractive that it would old the very best class of our citizens. [Editorial of the New York Evening Journal, Apr. 6, 1916.] N OLD HORSE AND AN OLD MAN-A SELF-RESPECTING FARMER TAKES OLD HORSE-THE RICHEST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD TURNS THE TO STARVE. [Copyright, 1916, Star Co.] At the top of this page are printed photographs of five men, ea as served the United States as a letter carrier for about 50 year heir pictures, not to make any especial appeal on their behalf-fo hem asks it. The photographs are printed to show you what type of men giv o the Government and to the public-earnest, high class, self-res worthy of respect and of gratitude. ather as you look at these faces and use your influence to get justice for honest work. tion was adopted unanimously by the National Civic nual meeting, held in the New Willard Hotel, January , D. C.: ∙ivilized country has provided a system of retirement perannuated and otherwise disabled employees; and vestigation of the subject of pension systems has been department of the National Civic Federation; and tion has clearly demonstrated that a retirement system s is the most practical solution of the superannuated interest both of economy and efficiency: Therefore be it National Civic Federation in annual meeting assembled anuary 17, 1916, declares itself in favor of the immediate uitable retirement system for Federal employees urging tment of such legislation at the present session; and be of this resolution be sent to the President of the United the Cabinet, to each Senator and Member of the House RTY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, National Federation of Post Office Clerks, Washington, D. C. R: In reply to your recent inquiry as to my opinion upon is a bill to retire postal employees on annuity, permit is the American Federation of Labor has been officially the principle of old-age pensions for civil-service emtates is one of the few civilized countries that has not provisions for superannuated Government employees. L. officially indorsed the principle upon which such a s endeavored to further the efforts of Federal employees on by Congress upon legislation for this purpose. in accord with sound business principles as well as prinnanity. Under present conditions it is frankly acknowlre retained in the service even after their usefulness has 1 because a decent regard for humanity makes it imposGovernment to dismiss without further means for subè given a life's service to the service. ical and more humane to retire superannuated employees for Government work the service of vigorous, capable. Mr. BEACH. Mr. Chairman, anticipating that a great overnment employees will wish to be heard at this time, ared a statement in order that I may place my views co re the committee, and will ask to have it go in the reco The CHAIRMAN. Yes. (The statement of Mr. Beach is here printed in full as That Congress should enact an equitable retirement law has 1 iterated as to become a maxim. The need for such legislat -ought to the attention of Congress more than 30 years ago, a en repeatedly introduced in Congress since. In 1912 Preside s unqualified approval to a retirement plan. Heads of depa iefs of bureaus have incorporated in their annual reports from ecommendations for a retirement law. The Democratic Party in plank in its national platform recommending the passage of w; and, in their last annual reports, the Secretary of the Treasu ry of War, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Lab epartment officials strongly urged retirement legislation. Hearin eld by committees in Congress, facts and figures have been mars ort of various plans, and a great mass of matter has been co udents of the subject. Senator Pomerene, in submitting a rep ommittee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, on February 13, Present conditions in the civil service, due in large part to su ave become almost intolerable, and each year they are growin would, therefore, appear that the time has arrived for definite a oncrete plan should be determined upon, and that a retirement 1 macted at an early date. There are but three types of system to be considered when t uestion is under discussion; the wholly contributory system, t he employee is required to contribute the entire amount for the is own annuity; the noncontributory system, through which the ays the whole amount of pension or annuity; and the partly co em, in which the employee and the Government share jointly i maintenance. The most advanced thought upon this subject is no unanimous in favor of the partly contributory system. These va are very ably discussed in a monograph recently published by Mr. Pa of the Bureau of Municipal Research of New York City. In view of the fact that so much statistical and ethical mat printed on the subject of retirement I shall not, in the time allote take to cover that ground, but I desire to address the committee the partly contributory plan embodied in the bill introduce Wadsworth April 4, 1917, (S. 281) and referred to this committ 1777-17-7 98 RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE. is indorsed by the organization of which I am a member. Mr. Ryan of the Bureau of Education, who will follow me, has made a study of retirement systems in operation in foreign countries and in States and municipalities, and has some very interesting matter to contribute to this subject. In May, 1916, the Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment held hearings on the Pomerene bill (S. 3079), which proposed to establish a wholly contributory system for retirement, and at the same time hearings on the Ashurst bill (S. 5673), which was designed to establish a noncontributory system. So far as I am advised the committee has not heretofore had under consideration a system similar to the one embodied in the Wadsworth bill. In the consideration of any retirement system there are three vital factors which concern the employee and the Government alike, and which must be considered in their relationship one to the other: First, the age fixed for retirement and whether retirement at any specified age shall be optional or compulsory. Second, the maximum and minimum amount of annuity fixed in the plan and the conditions under which the same shall be paid. Third, assuming that the noncontributory plan is no longer tenable, the amount of contribution required from the employee and the cost to the Government to establish and maintain an equitable system. The plan for retirement at certain specified ages as outlined in the first section of the Wadsworth bill is entirely new and has not heretofore been incorporated in any other retirement bill. It provides that eligibility for retirement shall be fixed at 70 years during the first year of operation, at 69 years during the second year, 68 years during the third year, and so on until 65 years becomes the minimum age for optional retirement. As provided in section 7, an employee may be continued in the service beyond the retirement age for stated periods at the discretion of the head of the department or bureau. After the law has been in full force and effect for a period of 10 years, however, retirement becomes compulsory at 70 and optional at any time between 65 and 70. Compulsory retirement at 70 is defended for the reason that in a very large percentage of cases the maximum of efficiency has been reached and passed before that age, and after that time superannuation in all the term implies becomes more acute each year. Optional retirement at 65 is a necessary corollary to a wholly contributory or partly contributory system. If an employee has been contributing for a period of 25, 30, 35, or 40 years it would appear to be an act of justice and equity that he should be given the option of retiring at an age when he may yet have several years in which to enjoy the fruits of his labors. How many employees will avail themselves of this privilege is a problem which experience only will solve. I find that many employees who have reached the retirement age and are still in receipt of a good salary do not wish to retire, particularly on a comparatively small annuity such as provided in the Wadsworth bill. On the other hand, employees still in middle life are looking forward with great anticipation to the enactment of a retirement law and couple this anticipation with the hope that they may not be compelled to remain in the service until they are 70 years of age. In the event that a considerable percentage of those who may become eligible for retirement between 65 and 70 avail themselves of the privilege to retire, the Government would still be the beneficiary, for we can well imagine a strong, virile civil service made up of employees less than 65 years of age. In this connection I desire to recommend very strongly to this committee a change in the civil-service regulations which, following the passage of a retirement law, will fix the maximum age for entrance to clerical positions in the classified civil service at 35 years. Thus the Government would secure to itself at least 30 years of service before the employee would be eligible for retirement and at a period in the life of the employee when he would be most capable of rendering efficient service. Having in mind the scant consideration which other bills providing a scale for large annuities have received in Congress, and rather than to try to attain the impracticable and the impossible, the organization which I represent decided to indorse a schedule of annuities which would appeal to Congress as being fair both for the individual employee and for the Government. The schedule of annuities provided in the Wadsworth bill fixes a maximum of $600 per annum for those who have been 30 years or more in the service, and other annuities graduated both in relation to the number of years in the service and the average salary, pay, or compensation received during the last 10 years of service. RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE. 99 It can not truthfully be said that the employees are unanimously in favor of this schedule. Probably no other phase of the retirement question causes so much difference of opinion as the amount of annuity to be paid the retired employee. This is quite natural. The employee who is in receipt of a good salary, say $2,000 or more, does not regard with favor a plan which will compel him to retire on an annuity of $600 or less. The large mass of employees, however, are included in the classes in which salaries range from $720 to $1,400 per annum, and such employees are more enthusiastically in favor of annuities as provided in the Wadsworth bill. As a test case, in March, 1917, I compiled statistics concerning employees in the Bureau of Pensions who would be eligible for retirement on July 1, 1917, under the provisions of the Wadsworth bill if enacted before that time. It was found that if all should live until July 1, 197 would be eligible for retirement. Of this number exactly 100, or nearly 51 per cent, would receive the maximum annuity of $600; that the lowest annuity would be $180; and the average for all annuitants would be $509.40. It is believed that the average annuity under this bill for the classified service, as a whole, will be about $500 per annum. I am frank in stating, as my personal opinion, that such annuities are fair to the employee and that they will afford a great measure of relief to those who must sooner or later be compelled to retire from the service; also that the Government should not, in justice and in equity, enact a retirement law providing a lower schedule of annuities, particularly under a partly contributory system. The following is a sample table of annuities: The Wadsworth bill provides for deduction of 2 per cent from the salaries of all employees included within the provisions of the bill, limited, however, to $50 per annum, and said deductions become a contribution to the "civil-service retirement and disability fund." How far such deductions will go toward maintaining the proposed retirement system must be to a certain extent speculative, for the following reasons: First. It is practically impossible to estimate accurately the number of employees who will retire from the service under the provisions of any bill which includes optional retirement. This feature is not peculiar to the Wadsworth bill; it was also included in the bill known as the Pomerene bill, reported to the Senate at the last session. Students of the question now almost unanmously indorse the theory of optinal retirement, particularly during the first years of operation. Second. There are at present no available statistics to show how many employees are over 70 years of age. Senator Pomerene in submitting his report, heretofore quoted, states "about 5,000 are 70 years of age or over." Others believe the number to be considerably in excess of 5,000. If but 5,000 retire the amunt of contributions on a 2 per cent basis as provided in the Wadsworth bill will produce nearly double the amount necessary to pay the annuities during the first year of its operation; or, to reduce this statement to figures, the estimated contributions will amount to $4,900,000, and the estimated annuities will amount to $2,500,000. Of course, if a greater or less number retire the ratio of amount contributed to amount of annuities paid will vary in prportion thereto. Third. The number of vacancies caused by the retirement of superannuated employees and subsequently filled by appointment or promotion is an unknown quantity, difficult to estimate, and a problem which must be solved by experi ence. |