PERFORMANCE RATING ACT OF 1950

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1950

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 214, Old House Office Building, Hon. Tom Murray (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

The first business for consideration this morning is the resumption of hearings on H. R. 7824, the bill on efficiency ratings.

At our previous meeting, Commissioner Perkins from the Civil Service Commission appeared in opposition to a great many features of the bill, and this morning we propose to close the hearings on this legislation, after we hear from representatives of the various employee groups.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Luther Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER STEWARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. STEWARD. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Luther Steward, and I am president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. I am appearing in support of H. R. 7824, the bill under consideration by the committee this morning.

Our reasons for support of this proposal are as follows:

While granting to the heads of departments and agencies considerable latitude in the setting up of systems to meet the diverse conditions existing in those departments, and agencies, it nevertheless requires that prior to being placed in operation, such proposed systems shall be considered and approved by the Civil Service Commission.

In the face of the very alarming trend toward increasing the complexity of governmental administration, we like this bill, whose keynote is simplicity.

We feel that there are altogether too many operations of our Federal Government that are made unnecessarily complex which renders them difficult of administration and difficult for the ordinary person to understand.

This bill definitely and clearly sets forth its objectives. It meets the most important objection that has been leveled against efficiency or service ratings during the last 30 years, that of a punitive instrument whose general purpose was to punish.

83

This bill, in section 5 specifically setting forth the objectives sought, takes an entirely—and I may say, refreshing approach to the subject. It is aimed not only to improve the relationship between management and supervisor with subordinates, with the view to getting the best possible service from employees, but also to provide that employees shall be acquainted of their weaknesses, if weaknesses exist, with a view to correcting them, so that the Government, as an employer, may be saved the tremendous sums that it costs the Government as an employer to train the employees in whatsoever tasks they are assigned. It definitely sets forth the necessity for the establishment of standards of performance so that employees will understand what is expected of them, in order to meet the requirements of their respective positions, so that they may understand the rules of the game that they are called upon to play in their daily life and their daily work.

It provides for a lessening of the present five ratings, which we, in common with a great many others, have thought were an excessive number, and inevitably led to too many hairline distinctions. This bill gets to the very meat of the problem and proposes to divide employees subject to some performance rating, into the three general categories of satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and excellent or outstanding, thereby assuring that the great majority of employees who perform a satisfactory day's work will remain undisturbed. It provides that such number of employees as, after conference, examination of their performance, and such remedial measures as may be undertaken by their supervisors in cooperation with the employee himself, are determined in the last analysis not to measure up to reasonable standards, and therefore, in respect of whom certain action must be taken.

Then the third group, which while comparatively small in relation to the whole mass is, in many respects, the most important of all, the determination and isolation of outstanding employees, the promotables, the type that every competent executive or administrator is always in search of in order to afford such employees that show potential outstanding qualities an opportunity to expand and, by the assignment to them of more important and responsible duties, developing the supervisory and administrative employees of the years to come.

This bill provides that in the event, and after the exercise of the very practical and commonsense provisions of section 5, it is determined that an employee is unsatisfactory, such employee shall receive 90 days' notice before any action is taken in respect of such employee.

The bill provides a perfectly reasonable and equitable system of appeals. However great or small the number of appeals from action in respect of personnel matters may be, a well-set-up and equitable system of appeals constitutes a healthy and very necessary check upon administration.

If administration is good, the number of appeals will, in a short space of time, substantially lessen, and that, in itself, would indicate an improvement in administration.

The bill provides that in the event a department or agency does not comply with the terms of the act, either neglects to set up a system or systems of service ratings which meet with the approval of the Civil Service Commission, such system or systems may be designed by the Civil Service Commission and imposed on such department or agency, and that the same result may eventuate from the failure of a depart

ment or agency promptly to administer or apply such systems as they may have in operation in their respective departments or agencies. The bill makes clear the method by which step rate increases within grade for classification act employees may be received in consonance with and in carrying out the purpose of the Classification Act of 1949. We feel that the bill before you this morning represents a very advanced step in improving the whole area of service or efficiency ratings, will prove beneficial both from the standpoint of improved administration, and will meet with a much greater satisfaction on the part of the employees who will, and justifiably, feel a greater confidence in the operation of a system such as proposed in the bill before you than in anything they have had in the past or at the present time. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you this morning, Mr. Chairman.

That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of the witness?

Mr. REES. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman.

You were present, were you not, when Miss Perkins, a member of the Commission, testified with respect to this proposed legislation? Mr. STEWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. You are not in accord with her views with respect to most of it, are you?

Mr. STEWARD. No, sir.

Mr. REES. That is all. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Steward.

Mr. STEWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Thomas G. Walters, operational director of the Government Employees Council.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. WALTERS, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; for the record, my name is Thomas G. Walters, operations director of the Government Employees Council of the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we of the Government Employees Council are happy indeed to endorse the provisions and the intent of H. R. 7824. We feel that this bill has for its purpose to modernize and to eliminate a lot of the bad features of the present system, and we likewise feel that this bill is not only fair to the employees, but it is likewise very fair to the Federal Government, the employer.

We do have one or two questions that we would like to ask, and those especially have to do with section 2, paragraph B, where it sets up to eliminate certain employees; and line 9, where it says "Employees in the Territories and possessions of the United States."

Now, we were wondering if that would eliminate the employees, say, in the Panama Canal that are under the Classification Act.

If so, we would suggest an amendment that all employees under the Classification Act of 1949 be included in this bill, especially with reference to employees in the Panama Canal Zone.

Mr. REES. In other words, you think the employees of the Panama Canal Zone should come under the provisions of this bill?

Mr. WALTERS. They want to come under the provisions of this bill, yes, sir. We have had several requests from the groups in the Panama Canal Zone that are anxious with respect to whether or not they will be included in the provisions of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walters, I have had an amendment proposed or prepared, which I propose to offer when the committee considers the bill in executive session, striking out that language with respect to employees in the Territories and possessions of the United States, and adding in lieu thereof, "officers and employees of the municipal government of the District of Columbia, whose compensation is not fixed by the Classification Act of 1949."

Mr. WALTERS. That is fine, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on page 4, line 11, we were of the opinion that the word "officers" should be eliminated. Since it provides that the first member of the Appeals Board shall be designated by the head of the department, we were of the opinion that the second member shall be designated by the employees, because in most cases we consider that the officers are members of the policymaking groups, and therefore, they would perhaps have two members of the Appeals Board rather than one.

We would recommend that the bill be amended to the extent of eliminating the word "officers" on line 11.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walters, does not the present law include officers and employees and categorically does not that mean that when you use the words "officers" in this section you are referring to your supervisors and to your administrators, and not to the head of the department? Of course, the supervisors and the various administrators under the heads of the departments, should have some right or voice in selecting the employee representative.

Mr. WALTERS. Mr. Chairman, we have had some criticism on that to this extent:

The employees feel that if the supervisor, or some of the officials near the top of the agency suggests some man or some person to be a member of the Board, the employee would never take a position contrary to that ordinarily, and information comes to us that in reality the head of the agency as a rule designates the two members, one representing the head of the agency and one representing the employees. We felt that since we were attempting to make this somewhat of a model law, if the word "officers" was eliminated, then there could not be any argument that the heads of the agencies were getting more power than the employees in naming the members of the Appeals Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the supervisory officials who would be included as officers under this language receive efficiency ratings, and naturally, they are interested in their own efficiency ratings.

Mr. WALTERS. That is true, too. There is argument on both sides of the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Another thing, is it not left to a direct vote of all of the employees and supervisory officials, and do not the employees constitute the great majority of the supervisory officials?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, but the information comes to us that most appeals board members have always been selected on the recommendation or nomination of either the supervisor or somebody in the higher categories rather than from employees. In other words, if we were out

here at a meeting and there were 15 employees and 2 supervisors, and the supervisors nominated somebody, the employees would hesitate to oppose their nomination. It is just one of those things that I do not know how you are going to get away from as long as the supervisory officials who help make the policy of an agency are involved, because the employees are not, naturally, going to buck them at a meeting like that. Those are the only two recommendations we have to offer to the bill.

We feel that all in all it is a wonderful piece of legislation and we are most anxious that it becomes law. But while we were attempting, under your guidance, to make a model bill, we felt that if the word "officers" was eliminated, it would certainly make it a little more democratic. Since you had already prepared the amendment to climinate the question raised on page 2, then there would not be but one amendment that we would have to offer, and that would be to strike out the word "officers" if the committee would see fit to do that. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of Mr. Walters?

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question there: I see what you are afraid of, but if you deprived the officers, who receive ratings, from any voice in the selection of a member of that board, what are you going to do to represent them at all?

Mr. WALTERS. In reality, now the supervisors name the wage board member for the head of the agency. I think if a detailed survey was inade of that you would find that in 95 percent of the cases, the supervisors are asked to express an opinion as to who the head of the agency is going to designate for the wage board member for the head of the agency, so in reality they are having an opportunity to name two, or to assist in the naming of two.

Mr. CORBETT. But here what you are asking-and I think your objective is quite satisfactory-is to strike out from the law any right of the officers to even effect the choice of a representative.

Mr. WALTERS. No. We do not have any objections if, under the first head, you would say "one member shall be named by the officers and the head of the department."

Mr. CORBETT. I think that is better.

Mr. WALTERS. That in reality is what they are doing now.

Mr. CROOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an observation here. With all the experience I have had in educational work, we found a parallel case.

As long as the teachers and principals and supervisors and superintendents were put in the same category in the organization, when it came to getting representation, invariably the principal, the supervisor or the superintendent was selected, and they feared to make a vote against that individual.

I believe if we are going to have a representative of the employees, let us have a representative of them and make our language specific, and there will be no question about it. If you are going to give them representation, they should have representation pure and simple and no question about it. It is these little questions, these implied things in our laws that cause so much controversy subsequent to the passage of the act.

Mr. CORBETT. That is exactly it. Would the gentleman agree with Mr. Walters' further recommendation that the officers have some