There are three witnesses on our list to testify this morning who are not here. What would you suggest, gentlemen? Shall we recess for a few minutes ? Mr. STINSON. Mr. Powell, there are a few other men representing organizations who can testify to fill in for the time being, if that is agreeable with you. Mr. PoWELL. What are their names? Mr. STINSON. There is Mr. Rice, of the railway mail service. Mr. POWELL. That is right. Mr. WIER. We might as well hear him today. Mr. POWELL. That is right. This is Mr. R. A. Rice, president of the Railway Mail Association. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. RICE, PRESIDENT, RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert A. Rice. I am president of the Railway Mail Association, having a membership of 27,600 railway postal clerks, who perform service in railway post office cars, terminals, transfer offices, and air-mail fields. Our association heartily endorses the proposed amendments to the Compensation Act as provided in H. R. 3191. There have been no changes made in the basic provisions of the Compensation Act during the past 20 years, and we therefore believe that an upward revision of the benefit payments under the Compensation Act should be made to bring it abreast of present-day needs. Our members, particularly those assigned to duty in railway post office cars, are exposed to death and injury perhaps more than any other group of Government employees, and an unfortunate series of disastrous railroad accidents during recent years, in which many of our members were killed or injured, clearly demonstrates the need and necessity for a more equitable adjustment of benefit payments under the Compensation Act. The Railway Mail Association, in conjunction with Post Office Department officials, are continually striving to reduce the accident rate in the railway mail service. The biennial report of the committee on claims of the Railway Mail Association reveals the following information relative to the number of deaths and accidental injuries while on duty for the period 1936 to 1947. The total for those 11 years is 33 deaths from injuries while on duty and 7,605 accidental injuries while on duty. The major purpose of this bill is to bring benefit provisions for employees injured in the performance of duty, or their dependents in the case of death to the level necessary for reasonable protection against financial loss and the burden resulting from disability or death. The present law provides for maximum monthly payments of $116.66 and the minimum monthly payments of $66.66 per month, and under prevailing salary brackets and the tremendous increase in the cost of living, such payments are wholly inadequate. H. R. 3191 provides for an increase in maximum payment to 663 percent of the employee's salary plus 813 percent when there are dependents, and minimum benefits of $112.50 per month. It further provides additional compensation for permanent partial disabilities for injuries incurred while in the performance of an employee's duty. The sponsors of H. R. 3191 have made an exhaustive study of needed changes in the Compensation Act and have conferred with numerous experts in the field of workmen's conpensation. They have checked the provisions of similar laws in State statutues and it is believed that the changes decommended in H. R. 3191 will provide Government employees with disability protection as least equal to similar protection provided by State government. We therefore express the hope that this subcommittee will recognize the need for basic changes in the Compensation Act as set forth in H. R. 3191, and favorably report the bill to the full committee. Final enactment into law will indeed establish a very sound principle of social legislation. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke, have you any questions? Mr. BURKE. No, I think not. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Wier? Mr. WIER. Yes. In view of the fact that you perhaps represent the group that has the most accidents, I want to ask you this. In this proposed bill, with which I presume you are familiar, aside from raising the benefits to an up-to-date proration of your salaries, is there anything else in this bill that affects the railway mail employees as such? Is that the only section of this bill that is beneficial? Mr. RICE. You mean, just to raise the rate of compensation? Mr. RICE. I am not an expert on the entire bill, but so far as I am able to observe in there, that is about the only thing it does. Mr. WIER. In other words, if I should ask you what is there in this bill that is beneficial to your organization aside from the adjustment in your compensation and death rates, would you say there is anything? Mr. RICE. No, I do not believe so. But I will say this, Mr. Wier, that the adjustment in rates is certainly very important at the present time. Mr. WIER. I am just setting that aside. I am thoroughly cognizant of rates. But I am wondering if there is any other additional cost to the Government in this bill as is that will affect your membership. Mr. RICE. I do not think so. In the case of railroad accidents, these clerks that are injured in a train wreck do have the option of getting an adjustment from the railroad company or of coming under the provisions of the present Compensation Act. Mr. WIER. I wanted to come to that. Mr. RICE. Of course, usually in the case of serious accidents, the railroad company's adjustment is far superior to the compensation under the present law. Mr. WIER. I was going to come to that, because it was mentioned to me that in addition to the adjustments of compensation here, if one of your men was in a wreck in which the mail clerk loses his arm in a crash, he could also sue the railroad. Mr. RICE. He could sue the railroad company, but in case he does, then he is barred from any provision in here. Mr. WIER. Any of the benefits. Mr. RICE. He has his choice. Mr. WIER. Yes. A witness explained that here yesterday. So the only thing in this bill with all of its pages, as a matter of fact, that is increasing the cost of Government is the increase in the compensation and the death rates? Mr. RICE. Another very vital thing that it does is to compensate for the loss of an arm, leg, or so on, that we do not have under the present law. I will say this. In the Railway Mail Association, the organization of railway postal clerks, we have accident policies, and we pay under those policies a certain definite fixed amount for the loss of those members. Mr. WIER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Rice. Mr. HALLBECK. I am here, Mr. Chairman. TESTIMONY OF E. C. HALLBECK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS Mr. HALLBECK. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing here this morning in place of Mr. Leo E. George, of our organization, who was scheduled to appear at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I made an attempt to find out whether the committee was meeting this morning, and evidently I got the wrong information somewhere; otherwise, either Mr. George or myself would have been here on time. I want to apologize to the committee for that delay. Mr. POWELL. The committee did not receive permission from the House to hold the hearings while the House was meeting because we did not think the House was meeting as early as 10 o'clock. Mr. HALLBECK. I see. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be just as well satisfied to submit Mr. George's statement for the record and speak extemporaneously for a moment or two on the general content of it, if that meets with the approval of the committee, or I can read the statement, whichever you prefer. Mr. POWELL. The statement is about 1,500 words? Mr. HALLBECK. Something like that. Mr. POWELL. We have the statement, of course. Without objection, we will accept it for the record, and we will have a few words from Mr. Hallbeck. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF LEO E. GEORGE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS RELATIVE TO H. R. 76, H. R. 1236, AND H. R. 3191 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Leo E. George, president of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, an organization of clerks in first-, second-, and third-class post offices throughout the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. During the years 1946, 1947, and 1948 there were 20,458, 22,399, and 21,509 compensable injuries reported by postal employees. Of these, 8,161 in 1946 were post-office clerks and supervisors, of which 4 resulted in death. In 1947 there were 9,064 injured clerks and supervisors and 3 deaths. The break-down showing the number of each classification in the postal service is not available for 1948, but the percentage would be about the same. The present law providing compensation for injury was approved September 7, 1916. It provided for benefits amounting to not more than 66% percent of the monthly pay, provided that no benefit of more than $66.67 per month should be paid. It also provided that the minimum benefit should be $33.33 unless the employee's monthly pay amounted to less than $33.33, in which event the compensation would equal the amount of monthly pay. An amendment to the act of September 7, 1916, enacted February 12, 1927, increased the maximum benefit to $116.66 and the minimum to $58.33. An amendment was adopted May 13, 1936, providing that in cases of total disability requiring an attendant, $50 per month additional may be allowed. Aside from those two amendments, no appreciable liberalization of the compensation-for-injury law has been made since its enactment. The maximum set in 1916 (66% percent of the regular pay or $66.67, whichever is the lesser) was based upon a maximum salary of $100 per month or $1,200 per year. Likewise the maximum fixed in 1927, which is still the maximum, was based upon a salary of $175 per month or $2,100 per year. It is hardly necessary to call attention to the changes that have occurred since 1927 that make the maximum benefit under the present law woefully inadequate. The obligation of the employer and the community to the worker injured in the course of his employment has become universally recognized. Every State in the United States, as well as Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, have workmen's compensation laws. Many of them provide greater benefits than are possible under the United States employees' compensation law. Most of the State legislatures have before them at the present time proposals to increase benefits or to broaden their coverage or both. Some of these proposals have been approved by at least one branch of the State legislatures. These facts testify to the inadequacy of the benefits under the law that is here proposed to be amended. I want here to express my personal appreciation and that of the members of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks to Representative Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, and particularly to Chairman John Lesinski of this committee, for their interest in this subject and to the members of the committee for giving their time and efforts to securing favorable action on it. The bills, H. R. 76, by Mr. Keating; H. R. 1236, by Mr. Lesinski; and H. R. 3191, by Mr. Lesinski are similar in purpose although differing in details. WAITING PERIOD The present law provides that no compensation shall be paid for the first 3 days that an injured employee is in a nonpay status. If, at the time of injury, the employee has to his credit sick leave with pay or annual leave (vacation), he may elect to take such leave with pay or compensation. If he elects to accept compensation for injury, he receives nothing for the first 3 days. If he elects to take leave with pay and the period of disability extends beyond the period of leave with pay, he can receive no compensation for 3 days following the expiration of his leave with pay. I have always contended that in the case of an injury sustained in the course of his employment (this law provides for compensation only for injury sustained in line of duty or while on Government property going to or returning from duty) he should not be compelled to be in a nonpay status during the time of his disability. Neither H. R. 76 nor H. R. 1236 deals with this subject. H. R. 3191, however, provides in section 101 (a) that, if the disability exceeds 21 days in duration, payment shall be made for the first 3 days. That is a step in the right direction and an improvement over present law. I still contend, however, that there should be no waiting period in the case of injury on duty. Section 101 (b) of H. R. 3191 provides that if the injured employee elects to take sick leave or annual leave that is to his credit, the time periods specified in section 101 (a) shall not begin to run until the period of leave with pay has ended. That would mean that an injured employee, after having exhausted all sick leave and annual leave to his credit, would still have to be in a nonpay status for 3 days unless his disability extends more than 21 days beyond the period of his leave with pay. I believe that is inconsistent with the purpose of section 101 (a) and that, if the committee does not agree that the waiting period should be eliminated altogether, section 101 (b) should be modified to provide that compensation shall be paid if the disability extends to the minimum period provided in section 101 (a) including time covered by sick leave or vacation, or both. INCREASED BENEFITS H. R. 76 and H. R. 1236 both provide that the benefit for total disability shall be 75 percent of the employee's pay with a maximum of $225 per month and a minimum of $112.50 per month unless the monthly pay of the employee is less than $112.50, in which case the minimum is the amount of the monthly pay. H. R. 3191 provides for a minimum benefit of $112.50 for total disability and no dollar maximum, but a maximum of 66% percent of the regular monthly pay, except where there are dependents, in which case the maximum is 75 percent. The maximum benefit provided in H. R. 76 and H. R. 1236 is therefore preferable to the 66% percent provided in H. R. 3191. However, I want to reiterate my belief that an employee injured in line of duty should receive full compensation for loss of earnings, as well as reimbursement for necessary medical and surgical attention. All three of the bills being discussed-H. R. 76, H. R. 1236, and H. R. 3191provide for graduated benefits for partial disability that is permanent in character due to the loss of or loss of use of a part of the body or of its function. We hope the committee will approve that feature of these proposals. Practically every compensation-for-injury law provides for such benefits and this law should be liberalized as proposed. All three of these bills provide for increased burial expense in case of death and for increased benefits to dependents. These are modest increases in view of increased prices and cost of living generally and should have the approval of the committee. BENEFITS FOR DISEASES The present law provides that benefits may be paid for diseases "proximately caused by the employment." That language is so indefinite as to mean little in the way of securing benefits for diseases incurred or even disabilities incurred as a result of long-term exposure to conditions that inevitably exact a toll of impaired health and permanent loss of efficient functioning of body members. Post-office clerks particularly are subjected to continual use of eyes under varying conditions of lighting and often with inadequate or improper lighting. Improper ventilation and heating, involving exposure to extremes of heat and cold, result in numerous cases of respirational diseases. Thirty-nine of the States and Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico provide compensation for so-called occupational diseases. This law should be broadened to provide more adequate protection for the employees of the United States Government. BENEFITS FOR THOSE ON ROLLS On January 26, 1949, a young man working as a substitute clerk-carrier, at the time performing the duties of a clerk in the post office at Bowling Green, Ky., was handling a small package of mail when it suddenly exploded, removing both of his hands and both of his eyes. He is married and the father of a small child. He is permanently and totally disabled. Under the present law he was given necessary medical and surgical attention. But he could receive no compensation for 3 days following expiration of any sick leave or vacation to his credit. Beginning with the fourth day after his being in a pay status, the maximum compensation he can receive is $116.66 per month plus $50 per month for an attendant. He was a young man, 29 years of age, with the hopes and aspirations of a normal young American of that age. He could look forward to many years of useful service and the happiness that such service and association of a normal family bring. Through no fault of his own, efficiently performing his duties as a post-office clerk, he was suddenly permanently maimed and disfigured. No longer able to engage in ordinary pursuits, no longer able through his own efforts to provide for himself and family, no longer even able to see his devoted wife and children. Could even payment of 100 percent of his potential earnings compensate him for his loss? I don't think it could. |