developed which so greatly reduce the possibility of accident that the degree of hazard becomes negligible. The examples cited above, however, go beyond such conditions. They take into consideration, for example, such matters as the need to deliberately operate equipment such as newly developed or modified aircraft beyond its known design capabilities or safe operating limits, and exposure to elements or conditions over which little or no control can be exercised. Normally few accidents occur in these hazardous situations; nevertheless, such assignments always are accompanied by the undeniable awareness of the inherent danger of the activity and the knowledge that an accident, should it occur, would almost certainly be fatal. The total cost of premium payments under this bill probably would be relatively low. Nevertheless, in individual situations they would serve as inducements to attract personnel for special tasks involving unusual hardships or hazards. The differential would not eliminate all pay inequities among Classification Act and wage board employees working under similar conditions of hardship or hazard; however, it would largely reduce the amount of the difference which normally favors the wage board employee. The monetary payment represented by the premium would, of course, be of immediate benefit to the employee. The Government can expect to benefit, too, however, as a result of improved employee morale, which undoubtedly would attend this formal recognition of the performance of unusually hazardous work. We do not think it feasible to establish such a program and have it operating satisfactorily within a period of 90 days after enactment as required by the bill. Accordingly, we recommend that consideration be given to amending section 2 of the bill to read as follows: "Sec. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins more than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act." The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. By direction of the Commission: Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr. U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Hon. Toм MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to the committee's request of January 29, 1963, for the Civil Service Commission's views with respect to H.R. 2478, a bill to amend the Classification Act of 1949 to authorize the establishment of hazardous duty pay in certain cases. This bill would authorize the payment, subject to regulations to be prescribed by the Commission, of pay differentials not to exceed 25 percent of basic compensation, to Classification Act employees performing irregular or intermittent duties involving physical hardship or hazard. The differential would be paid for any period in which the employee is subjected to physical hardship or hazard not regularly involved in or required for the performance of the duties of his position. It would not apply where the classification of the employee's position takes into account the degree of physical hardship or hazard involved. The Commission does not favor enactment of H.R. 2478. In a separate report on a similar bill, H.R. 1159 (and in an earlier report on H.R. 2079, 87th Congress, which is identical to H.R. 1159), we subscribed to the principle of hazardous duty pay in certain cases. However, in keeping with the language contained in H.R. 1159, we believe that premium payments for this purpose should be restricted to only the most deserving situations, that is, those involving exposure to "unusual" physical hardships and hazards. It is in this respect that we view H.R. 2478 unfavorably. Payments would not be limited to "unusual" situations. Rather, the bill would permit the differential to be authorized for irregular or intermittent exposure to any physical hardship or hazard, subject only to the stipulation that the hazard be neither regularly involved in, or required for, the performance of the duties of the position, nor taken into consideration in its classification. The number of potential hardships and hazards to be considered under this very broad coverage would be vastly greater than were the differentials to be authorized only for such exposure to unusual hardships and hazards. In addi tion to being more difficult to administer, such a hazard pay program would involve costs many times greater than would be required under H.R. 1159. Also to be considered is the fact that if the coverage of the differential is broadened to the extent provided by H.R. 2478, it would undoubtedly lose much of its value as an exceptional form of recognition and reward for the performance of duties under special circumstances. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. By direction of the Commission: Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. Mr. OLSEN. I will call on our next witness, Mr. John Griner, president, American Federation of Government Employees. And, if you will, please introduce your colleagues. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY W. J. VOSS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, AND GEORGE MEAGHER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES Mr. GRINER. Chairman Olsen, my name is John F. Griner. I am national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. To my right is Mr. W. J. Voss, who is our director of research. To my left we have Mr. George Meagher, who is now in charge of our legislative activities. I have a statement this morning, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering would you like me to read the statement, or would you like me to file the statement and just discuss the contents in general? Mr. OLSEN. Well, in the interest of time, because we are very favorably inclined toward this legislation, we would rather you would submit your statement and then tell us what you will about it. But we leave it up to you. Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to submit the statement. Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, then, it is ordered that your statement be entered in the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Griner follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES The bill H.R. 1159, sponsored by Representative Wallhauser, to provide a pay differential for unusual physical hardship or hazard, is approved by the American Federation of Government Employees. It is approved because it will repair a weakness in existing classification law. As presently applied, the classification law permits the Civil Service Commission in appraising the content and requirements of a position to take cognizance of hazard as an element of that position. For hazard to be so considered, however, it must be inherent in the duties and responsibilities of the position. This recognition of hazard as a constant factor does not extend to "irregular or intermittent duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard." This bill would extend the coverage of the law to these infrequent instances of hardship or hazard. To this extent, the bill proposed by Representative Wallhauser would equalize the treatment of all classified employees who from time to time may be called upon to risk their lives in the performance of their duties. It is not intended to introduce a new concept into the classification law, but merely to complete the application of an objective already there. There are many instances of the requirement of classified employees facing unusual hazard periodically in the performance of their duties, such as the electronic technician or engineer who is required to ride in an airplane of one of the military agencies when newly designed equipment is tested. Another example is the engineer in the classified service who is required to be aboard a submarine when new equipment is undergoing testing under actual operation at sea. A wage board employee included in such a civilian testing group may be compensated for the extra hazard. A classified employee may not. The number of employees affected would not be great and therefore would not entail any large expenditure. Then too, the differential would be paid only during the period in which the individual is subjected to physical hardship or hazard. When a similar bill was favorably reported to the House last year, it was indicated that the cost would be less than $100,000 a year. There is no apparent reason for modifying that estimate. Since recurrent hardship or hazard may be regarded as being included in the "substantial differences in the difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work performed," it is patently discriminatory to ignore completely the justice of taking into account those irregular or intermittent situations which infrequently expose the employee to danger. Extreme hazard cannot be logically measured in terms of frequency of occurrence. It may be trite but still it is a truism that it requires but one mishap to cause loss of life or to condemn the individual to permanent crippling. Other pay systems permit the compensation of periodic hazards. It has been a feature of the Army-Air Force wage board system. That system permits the provision of additional compensation for hazardous duty performed by the wage board employees in a manner similar to that provided in the Wallhauser bill. The Army-Air Force wage board in a recent report stipulated that "inherent risks will continue to be recognized as an element in the evaluation of wage board jobs." The report stated further that "certain predefined, unusually hazardous conditions will be treated for pay purposes by authorization of premium pay." The board stipulated that this extra pay would be limited to certain situations which require working with certain substances or agents "under conditions which by common acceptance clearly demonstrate a potential danger of temporary or permanent disability or disease or death." Similarly, H.R. 1159 provides that the Civil Service Commission shall establish a schedule of pay differentials for "irregular or intermittent duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard." The bill further provides that the appropriate differential shall be paid to any officer or employee covered by the amendment "for any period in which such officer or employee is subjected to physical hardship or hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position." The possibility of double payment for a hazardous element of a position is obviated by the provision that the pay differential shall not be applicable when the classification of a position takes into account the degree of physical hardship involved. Thus the differential will not be paid for a regularly recurring hazard by increasing the rate already paid because such an element has already been recognized as a basis for allocation of the position to a higher grade. Implementation of this proposed legislation will require careful phrasing of regulations governing its application. It will not be a simple matter to define "unusual physical hardship or hazard," but that is no reason for failing to remove a defect from existing law. The AFGE is of the view that the bill will provide a needed improvement in the classification law. We appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for stating the viewpoint of the organization on this bill. Mr. GRINER. I do have a few comments with respect to my statement. Mr. OLSEN. We certainly welcome your comments. Mr. GRINER. I might say in the beginning we are wholeheartedly in favor of this bill, and we appreciate the activities of Mr. Wallhauser in introducing and sponsoring this bill. As we already know from hearing Mr. Macy, this is not a new concept of classification. This just corrects an inadequacy in our present classification law. Under our present classification law-and I believe you will find that in sections 401 and 501 of the 1949 Classification Act, as amended-you will note that the Civil Service Commission or the agencies now have the authority to give additional compensation in cases where there is a continuous hazardous or hardship condition. But we are now faced with many cases where this hazardous or hardship condition is not continuous. It is only for a short period of time. And as you and I know, it only requires one mishap to cause a loss of life or to condemn the individual to be a permanent cripple. Then, again, this particular piece of legislation will make more uniform the application of the hazardous or unusual physical hardship as referred to between wage board employees and classified employees. Because under the present wage board law-and I believe you will find that is contained in section 202 (7) of the Classification Act-they do have authority to pay additional compensation in the case of intermittent hazardous work. I would like to point out also that the cost of this particular bill will be somewhat nominal. Last year I think Mr. Macy stated that the cost of the bill which was then before you-and I believe at that time the bill was H.R. 2079—would be approximately $100,000 a year. The cost should be even less this year, because with the word "unusual” which is used in line 8 of H.R. 1159 it makes the application of this law even more conservative than it would be under the former bill. Frankly, we believe that Mr. Macy's request for 180 days is not out of line. We believe that he can do it, and we believe that he will write up the necessary regulations in order to have this bill into effect in less than 180 days, but if it takes 180 days we will go along with that too. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anything particularly that I can point out with respect to this bill other than what has already been pointed out by Mr. Macy. Again I wish to say we do wholeheartedly endorse the bill. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Griner. Mr. Cunningham, do you have any questions? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No questions. Mr. OLSEN. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Griner, for your contribution here this morning. I know you point out all the distinctions that Mr. Macy points out and that you support this principle that Mr. Wallhauser brought to us so strongly last year. Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir, we do. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. GRINER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Mr. OLSEN. The next witness is our colleague, Congressman Wallhauser, of New Jersey. We are glad to have our colleague before us as a witness. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, before testifying to the merits of my bill, H.R. 1159, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Honorable Tom Murray, chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, for naming this subcommittee to hold hearings on the bill. I also appreciate the willingness of the chairman and members of the subcommittee to hold this hearing at this early date in the session. As most members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee know, I have had a long and active interest in seeing that the proposals contained in my bill are enacted into law. In the 86th Congress, I introduced a bill calling for the establishment, by law, of the principle that Classification Act employees should be paid additional compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. Again in the 87th Congress I introduced a similar bill, and it was approved unanimously by the committee and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the bill was not reached in the Senate before the 87th Congress adjourned. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will file the balance of my statement. Mr. OLSEN. Without objection, it will appear in the record in its entirety. (The prepared statement of Mr. Wallhauser follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Chairman, before testifying as to the merits of my bill, H.R. 1159, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Honorable Tom Murray, chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, for naming this subcommittee to hold hearings on the bill. I also appreciate the willingness of the chairman and members of the subcommittee to hold this hearing at this early date in the session. As most members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee know, I have had a long and active interest in seeing that the proposals contained in my bill are enacted into law. In the 86th Congress, I introduced a bill calling for the establishment, by law, of the principle that Classification-Act employees should be paid additional compensation for performing duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. Again in the 87th Congress I introduced a similar bill and it was approved unanimously by the committee and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the bill was not reached in the Senate before the 87th Congress adjourned. I believe that the action of the committee and the House last year clearly establishes that this is worthwhile and needed legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will be enacted into law at the earliest possible moment. Briefly, H.R. 1159 will correct an inequity and close a gap in existing law which discriminates against employees covered by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, with respect to hazardous duty pay. Mr. Chairman, this bill will close the gap by authorizing additional remuneration to employees asked to take unusual risks normally not associated with the performance of their duties of their position and for which added compensation is not otherwise provided. Under the bill, the Civil Service Commission will be directed to establish a schedule of pay differentials for irregular and intermittent duties involving unusual physical hardships or hazards. It will apply only to employees covered by the Classification Act. It will not apply to any employees where the physical hardship or hazard has been taken into consideration in establishing the position of the employee. The maximum pay differential allowable under the legislation is 25 percent of the rate of basic compensation. The added cost to the Government would be minimal because it has been estimated that only a few hundred employees might prospectively be involved. I am sure that we all agree that when physical hardships and hazards have been considered in establishing the class of the position and the appropriate rate of compensation, there is no justification for hazardous pay. The level of the position, because of such duty would provide the proper rate of compensation. In this connection, it is most significant to point out that physical hardships or hazards were not taken into consideration in evaluating the posi |