The postal clerks, some of them at any rate, need too much corrective legislation of immediate necessity to enthuse over a retirement plan that might rob them of their power to protest; that might make them servile and subservient; that might tend to make them endure deplorable conditions under the false lure of something to come at the expiration of years of service. An annuity based upon 20 or more years of service would not be of much benefit to those men connected with the distribution end of a post office under the present tendency to drive these men to the utmost. For long before the period for retirement eligibility is reached these men will, if they survive at all, be broken in mind and health, unable even to enjoy any pension or annuity that lured them into remaining in the service.

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 inhuman 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 wouldd 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 stripped from it by limited tenure. The Government service would therefore not attract men of the right caliber to carry on its work as efficiently as is now being done. Furthermore, limited tenure, making the employees' reappointment, if they were permitted to be reappointed, dependent upon the whim of the political department head, would foster partisan politics in the service.

Service annuity or retirement legislation is the only equable solution that is fair to the employee and the employer. Let us see if it is fair to the employer, the Government, to single out one class for this legislation that properly and rightfully, in my opinion, belongs to every wage earner who had contributed to the development, progress, and wealth of the Nation, and who in his declining years, through no fault of his own, was in need of monetary aid.

Take the post-office clerk, a distributor in a large office, and examine this question from his viewpoint. This distributor must of necessity devote most of his time to memorizing the ever-changing post-office schemes. To be expert in his Government work this employee must study after office hours to the exclusion of everything else. And the knowledge he is acquiring year after year is valueless to any other employer. This distributor can't sell his knowledge to some competing post office; neither can he establish an office of his own. No; his years of experience and study can not be capitalized. He must sell his knowledge to the Government. The years spent in memorizing post-office schemes, he finds out when too late. have unfitted him for other vocations. Though possessing a bewildering number of facts, he finds these facts are not an asset in the business or commercial world. He is a post-office distributor; he can be nothing else, because of that.

Meanwhile he finds his maximum salary of $1,200 is dwindling under the rapidly soaring cost of necessities. He must live a great distance from his work because post offices in large cities are in the business or commercial districts where rentals are beyond a clerk's income. His time spent in scheme study, his lengthy trip to and from work make his day, even with an eighthour limit, much longer than that of the average wage earner. If he is a man of family, and if there is sickness in his family, then the lot of this clerk is not an enviable one. And, remember, he is what the clerks term a highsalaried man. If he is a substitute clerk, or if he is but newly appointed, getting $66 a month, then his predicament is much worse.

A case like this is by no means exceptional. Rather is it typical. Such cases rarely ever attract public attention, however, because there is one thing 79180-18-5

that must be said of a Government job, it is a good medium for borrowing

money.

Outside of Washington, at least, the Government clerk can get unlimited credit; the various tradesmen are overobliging. This creates the erroneous impression that the clerk, on his princely salary, is able to live in a manner beyond the means of the artisan, whereas, in most instances, he is heavily involved in debt in trying to keep up appearances in his rôle of a representative of the greatest Government on earth.

If the salaries paid to postal employees permit of no saving for old age, if the work exacted of them unfits them for occupation elsewhere, then it is necessary for some system to be evolved to take care of those who have given the best years of their lives to the service, reaching an improvident old age despite the strictest vigilance to economize. This system, in my opinion, should take the form of contributions by the employees, provided a revision of salaries is first effected. The present salaries, in justice to the employees, should not be curtailed in the least.

It is the opinion of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks that the so-called straight pension, while seemingly an excellent proposition from the immediate beneficiaries' viewpoint, would in actual operation be less desirable than a contributory plan. A straight pension, we fear, will mitigate against the opportunities for betterment of the working conditions of the clerks.

In the event of the death of an employee just prior to becoming eligible for a retirement his family would raise the claim for a pro rata share of the pension. Once the principle is established of granting such claims on a pro rata basis, every employee's death, even though he were in the service but a few years, would be brought to the attention of Congress for a share of the pension due the decedent.

A straight pension or noncintributory plan would, in my opinion, defeat the very purpose that makes the establishing of some system so necessary, namely, to increase the efficiency of the service. No. department head would feel justified in dismissing an employee and thus deprive him of his pension rights. The same condition that prevails to-day, the withholding of discharge orders because of humanitarian motives, would continue to keep inefficient men on the pay rolls.

Any pension or retirement system that makes continuous service only a requirement for eligibility might tend to make the employees servile and subservient. The possibility of the loss of his long-sought pension, particularly in the latter years of service, would intrude on the thoughts of the employees to a demoralizing extent.

The power to deprive the employees of their pensions by removal from the service might foster the creation of a governmental bureaucracy. The political party in power might easily coerce the employees into partisan activity by even the implied threat of loss of pension interests.

Under the contributory plan, whereby the savings of the employees were available at the time of termination of connection with the service there would be little inclination for anyone, after realizing by a practical trial their unfitness for civil-service duties, to remain in an uncongenial work for the selfish purpose of participating in an annuity which would automatically follow a certain number of years of service. Also, under this plan, a department head would have no compunction about dropping from the rolls those whose efficiency fell below the standard.

It has been suggested that a straight pension plan could be made less objectionable by placing an annual valuation on the pension so the employee severing connection with the service could receive a pro rata share of his annuity. This, in effect, is an indirect contributory plan less attractive than the direct because the employee would get no benefit of accumulated interest.

Regardless of what system of retirement is finally found best suited to the requirements of the Federal service, the Government is confronted with the necessity of retiring those now at the age of superannuation. This is the only recourse, the only humane, economical, just way to correct the past mistake of not providing for a way out of the dilemma that now faces us.

Those now eligible for retirement should be granted an annuity which would have been theirs had the system been in vogue when they entered the service. Others who will become eligible before they have an opportunity to accumulate a sufficient amount for retirement purposes must also be provided for by special legislative features.

President Wilson in his book, The New Freedom, gives an illuminating thought of the question of pensions, saying:

They have been the stoutest and most successful opponents of organized labor, and they have tried to undermine it in a great many ways. Some of the ways they have adopted have worn the guise of philanthropy and good will and have no doubt been used, for all I know, in perfect good faith. Here and there they have set up systems of profit sharing, of compensation for injuries, and of bonuses and even pensions; but every one of these plans has merely bound their workingmen more tightly to themselves. Rights under these various arrangements are not legal rights. They are merely privileges which employees enjoy only so long as they remain in the employment and observe the rules of the great industries for which they work."

If, as our President thinks, a pension in a private corporation makes for the loss of the independence of the beneficiary, it would affect in a still greater degree the civil-service employee, whose knowledge is of value, in many instances, only to the Government.

That the civil-service clerk is a most necessary part of the governmental machinery will be attested to by any departmental chief. The wheels of the great national institution keep turning in much the same fashion regardless of which political party is in the ascendancy. An election, with all its noise and clamor, does not disturb but slightly the actual work of the Government. Call it routine, if you will, it is nevertheless an essential, important work. New political officials come into power with a determination to revolutionize the particular branch of the service placed in their control. At the end of a few months, after finding out the excellent, business-like manner in which affairs are conducted, after vainly looking for some real improvement to be made, they cheerfully follow the lead of all predecessors, turn the office over to the civilservice underlings, and confine their official activities to dinner and banquet acceptances or Chautauqua bookings.

Take our Postal Service as an illustration. Postmaster Generals come and go, each playing his part, but the volume of mail goes on forever. Each one experiences the same feeling; he is amazed at the vastness of the organization, its perfection, its numerous ramifications; and he is content to let it run on with an occasional tentative suggestion for its improvement.

Congress, too, legislates for the Postal Service, puts a law upon the statute books, and then proceeds to let the civil-service clerks adapt it to the needs of the department and the public. After all, the lowly clerk is not to be too lightly held. He is human, he is a factor that should be considered as necessary in carrying out the wishes of Congress. He is not only the wheels of the Government, but the heart and brains as well.

It has been truly and aptly said that the Government, in its conduct of the civil service, keeps the front door locked and the rear door wide open. Entrance into the service is difficult. It is only gained by successfully passing the closest scrutiny as to mental qualifications, character, and general fitness. Once in, however, and the applicant is given free rein to escape. He may be signally qualified for an exacting duty, his retention may be desirable from an economic viewpoint, still no particular inducement is made to him to make the service his life's work. He finds the exit wide open. Thus the most efficient material that comes into the service filters through it because outside attractions are greater and more promising. From a business standpoint this is wrong. If Government work requires skilled intelligence, experienced, trained, expert workers, then it is an economic waste not to attract and hold this class of employees. It is a mistaken policy to cheapen the Government service so that it is not a magnet for the best brains of the Nation.

The adoption of a contributory plan of retirement would first necessitate some reorganization of the present civil service. Such action would be in accordance with the Democratic platform plank of 1912, which says:

"We favor a reorganization of the civil service with adequate compensation commensurate with the class of work performed for all officers and employees." I urge that you adopt some equitable system to retire those now superannuated, and by the same token provide promotions for those who have been kept below their rightful sphere because of the absence of such needed legislation. I thank you for the consideration you have shown me.

Mr. RUSSELL. If I may test the indulgence of the committee further to ask permission for two or three more to make a statement as to what they favor? The CHAIRMAN. Our time has already expired. You might introduce them and let them say in a few words what they want.

[Hearing continued from Feb. 20 to Mar. 6, 1914.]

The committee resumed its sitting.

THE CHAIRMAN. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of House bill 11522, introduced by Mr. Nolan.

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

Mr. FLAHERTY. As a representative of post-office clerks, all of whom would be benefited by legislation such as the Nolan bill proposes, I earnestly urge the committee to give this measure the careful consideration it merits.

In section 1 of the bill it is provided that all civil-service employees who are employed by the year shall receive not less than $1,080. Section 2 provides a 5 per cent increase yearly for four years to those employees receiving more than $1,080, with certain limitations and provisions to prevent inequalities and insure justice to the employees affected.

Thus it can be seen that the postal employees are, in common with other Government workers, vitally interested in this bill, because it pertains to their salary classification, a most important matter to all of us.

The entrance salary in the post-office service is $800. At first thought one might think that this is an exceptionally high rate of pay to give a beginner. One unacquainted with the facts might think the Government was more liberal toward the new employee than private corporations, but such is not the case. This $800 wage is not really entrance salary. It is only reached by male clerks and carriers after an indefinite period of substitute work, a period of uncertainty, a period of precarious living, during which the income of the clerk and carrier fluctuates from day to day.

When consideration is given to the method adopted by the Post Office Department in having a long list of substitutes, who must necessarily wait years for regular employment, the $1,080 minimum fixed by this bill is only a just wage. If it is within the province of this committee, I would urge that you strengthen the bill to prevent the abuse of the substitute system in the postal department. Let a young man entering the service know that he will not have to wait five, six, seven, or even nine years, in some instances, before reaching the $1,080 minimum for regular appointment.

I know that the range of this Committee on Reform in the Civil Service is a wide one and covers a number of things not particularly germane to this bill, so I would like to point out some of the bad features of the present method governing post-office substitute work.

In the large offices, and I speak of them because I happen to have some knowledge of the conditions, although the same may be true in the small offices to a limited extent, the plight of the substitute clerk or letter carrier is an unenviable one. In Boston substitute letter carriers have waited nine years for regular employment. In almost any large office the substitute period for letter carriers and the carrier is worse off than the clerk in this respect-covers a period from two to five years.

The fact has been brought forth here this morning that the chief attraction of civil-service work is its permanency. But substitute carrier and clerical work in the Postal Service has not even this advantage. Though the substitute, in most large offices at least, must report day after day ready for work, he has no assurance of getting it. He must hold himself in readiness to report at any hour of the day or night. During the day he is forbidden, in many instances, to leave the building after reporting in the morning. He must sit around, waiting, waiting, waiting, for some mischance to enable him to take the place of a regular. Maybe in the evening he will be given three hours' work, at 30 cents an hour, during the nightly rush in the mailing division.

It is nothing unusual for substitute letter carriers and clerks to go week after week without receiving any regular assignment. The three or four hours work in the evening, for which they must wait around all day and which is the extent of their earning capacity because of that, represents their sole income. Think of it, gentlemen. These men have entered the Government service under the misapprehension of getting steady employment only to find they must struggle along for years at an uncertain wage, a wage that averages around the dollara-day mark.

I would like to place in the record a letter I received last week from a substitute clerk in Chicago, a member of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, for the enlightenment of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be incorporated in your remarks, Mr. Flaherty.

CHICAGO, ILL., February 26, 1914.

MY DEAR FLAHERTY: I know you have your hands full these days in trying to prevent the department from working the regulars to death in this office and letting the subs starve, but I want to tell you my tale of woe and see if I have any just cause for a suit in the Court of Claims against this great and glorious (Fourth of July stuff) Commonwealth of America.

You know I was a sub carrier but transferred to the clerks' list in expectation of getting an earlier appointment.

As a sub carrier I first bought a uniform, which set me back eight bucks. However, I felt repaid when I strutted along the street and let the neighbors all envy me in my shiny brass buttons. Now the whole uniform is shiny. If the kid hadn't got sick last April I would have bought a new coat but—. It seemed that every assignment I got as a carrier was at the other end of town. We live out at Oak Park-the rent is cheaper-and in order to get on the job at 6.30 I had to make allowances for an hour or two ride to my place of employment; thence case the mail, hike the cobblestones with a half ton-so it seemed of letters, papers, and packages; do the same thing three times over every day. Oh, I'm not kicking about the work part of it. My only kick is that the work doesn't come to me oftener. The 30 cents an hour as a substitute carrier suited me all right, but there wasn't enough of it; or, rather, there were too many subs after it.

Since becoming a substitute clerk I have struck a run of bad luck. I sit around all day figuring out my debts and waiting for three or four hours' work, at 30 cents per, in the evening. Say, it's surely worth 30 cents to stay in this Chicago mailing room an hour. The dirt, stench, dust, and fetid atmosphere is enervating and nerve racking. I don't see how the regulars stand it. When the time for my appointment draws near, about July 1, I'm going to send a friend of mine to Campbell and get at a station-the money order or the executive offices. None of this night work, scheme study, sack dumping for me. I've noticed that the fellows in the good jobs come to work at 8 or 9 and quit at 5, or 6, wear good clothes, and get the money. It was a wise fellow who said, "It isn't what you know in the post office; it's who you know that counts."

The 90-cent days, as the wife calls them, when I only get the mailing room facing-up work, have been all too frequent lately. When I deduct car fare and 15 cents at the beanery-for even a substitute must eat, a fact you might impress upon some of the higher-ups in Washington-my earnings will not enable the wife to take tango lessons or go to the horse show very often.

Some of the silk-stocking brigade, as the subs call the occupants of the mahogany-furnished rooms upstairs-the pollys or near pollys who had sense enough to enter the Postal Service from the top instead of the bottom-call us, I've been told, a bunch of "reds." This is not true, but I'm surprised it is not. You can't inculcate a love of country or humanity into a man who is accumulating a load of debts, a frayed appearance, and a hunted look in the employment of the greatest Nation on earth.

I am now one hundred and sixty-seventh on the list, so you see my chances for appointment are good. If times pick up on the outside there will be wholesale resignations from here. No young fellow with vim or spirit, at least if he is single, will ever stay with this Chicago post-office game after his eyes are open; and the subservice is a great eye opener. After my appointment I'll get $66 a month, and my wife, who is frugal and German, calculates we can get out of debt in three years if everything goes well. Say, Flaherty, when I'm free from debt and getting a hundred a month, I'll feel like Rockefeller, although the hundred-a-month fellows here who have gone through the mill tell me I'll never get out of debt and my salary will evaporate quicker as it grows larger. Meanwhile, you see if a claim against the Government for failure to support is valid. If the Court of Claims does not think it criminal to lure young men into the service under the guise of permanency of employment, and then let them starve, try to get the department to bar from the mails these magazines that accept ads from civil-service schools which read, "Work for Uncle Sam. Good pay, steady work, splendid opportunities. Tuition only, etc."

And while you are at the department you might tell them that the Government is losing $200 a day in Chicago by working regular clerks overtime at 40 cents an hour doing the work that substitutes should have for 30 cents. Not only is the department losing money, but the regular clerks are losing their effective