Senator MCKELLAR. I suppose if the committee were not willing to put in so large a sum, but were willing to put in some amount for it, it would be just that much better for you. Is that the idea?

Mr. ANDREWS. That is a very difficult thing for me to comment upon. It is up to the committee.

Senator BURKE. You would not have to have the full amount in order to make a start?

Mr. ANDREWS. That is correct.

Senator BURKE. If you had half the amount, you could go half as far as you think you ought to go?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

LITIGATION STAFF

Mr. McNulty, do you want to say something?

Mr. MCNULTY. I thought it might interest the Senators to know that our litigation staff, which is responsible for all litigation under the act, selecting the appropriate cases for reference to the Department of Justice for criminal handling, and actually handling all civil litigation in court, consists of exactly seven lawyers, including the chief. I do not think I need elaborate that statement.

STATUS OF LITIGATION

Senator MCKELLAR. Is your litigation increasing or diminishing? Mr. MCNULTY. We have about 100 cases which ought to be in court now, if we had the personnel to handle them.

Mr. ANDREWs. The violations are holding steady. As I say, we have been 100 percent successful, but the cases we have had are just a drop in the bucket. We ought to spread out over the country and set an example throughout the country, and not just in the spots we have already tackled.

Senator MCKELLAR. Is there anything else, gentlemen?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing to which I wish to ask you to give some consideration. Of course, there are a few clerical errors in the House bill, about which I wrote to you. I do not think we need to discuss them. They are obviously clerical errors, and I think corrections will be made without any need for discussion.

TRANSFER OF UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

However, since we presented the budget a major operation has been performed on the Department of Labor. The United States Employment Service has been taken away and put into another pocket. For 10 years some of the employees in the Secretary's office have been carried on the Employment Service pay roll, particularly the National Reemployment Service, which was a temporary organization, and increased the work of the Secretary's office. We find five persons on the Employment Service pay roll who should be left in the Secretary's office. We have sufficient money in our appropriation, because we have vacancies, but the vacancies must be filled by civilservice employees unless you give us other authority. The employees to whom I refer happen to have no civil-service status, because the Wagner-Peyser Act, under which they were appointed, did not require that they be taken from the civil-service registers.

LANGUAGE REQUESTED

We want to plead with you to give us some language which will permit us to keep those 5 employees, out of some 300. Our suggestion is, on page 2, line 9, to strike out the period, insert a colon in lieu thereof, and insert the following:

Provided further, That persons (not exceeding five in number) now detailed to the office of the Secretary from the United States Employment Service may be continued in the office of the Secretary and paid from the amount herein appropriated without regard to the provisions of the civil-service laws requiring competitive examinations.

EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION ALL CLERKS

The employees in question are all clerks. There are no highsalaried positions. The highest salary is $3,800. The rest are around $1,740. These particular employees have been in the service a long

time.

Senator MCKELLAR. Were they paid for out of emergency funds? Mr. SAUNDERS. They were paid from a direct appropriation made by Congress.

Senator McKELLAR. Yes.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Four of those employees were paid from funds regularly appropriated for the United States Employment Service, one from National Reemployment Service funds but heretofore on the rolls of the regular Service.

Senator MCKELLAR. That would be legislation on an appropriation bill.

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir; I think not.

Senator MCKELLAR. Do you think it would be a limitation? Mr. SAUNDERS. It would be exactly similar what we have done heretofore.

Senator TAFT. Why do you not take the money out of the United

- States Employment Service and put it in the Secretary's office? Mr. SAUNDERS. The Employment Service has been transferred. Senator TAFT. It is in this bill.

n

Mr. SAUNDERS. We could not use the money. The employees were appointed outside the civil service. We have the money. We are not asking for any money. We are only asking to be permitted to retain these five employees who have no civil-service status, and who were on the roll of the Employment Service, and to pay their salaries from funds regularly appropriated to the Department of Labor.

Senator TAFT. I do not see how we can modify the President's order. He has transferred those employees.

Senator MCKELLAR. We could do it, but it would be legislation. Senator TAFT. The President's order is not yet effective. We cannot do it in advance of the effective date of his order.

Senator BURKE. He is not transferring these five employees?
Mr. SAUNDERS. NO.

CIVIL-SERVICE STATUS REQUIRED

Senator BURKE. They would stay, but they cannot stay because they do not have a civil-service status.

Mr. SAUNDERS. That is correct. You have previously done what we suggest, Senator.

Senator MCKELLAR. I am inclined to think that would be legislation.

SAME PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WHEN TEXTILE BOARD WAS ABOLISHED

Mr. SAUNDERS. You did it before in the matter of the Textile Board. When the Textile Board was abolished you transferred 10 employees to the Conciliation Service, and said they might remain there until they died or left, and if their positions became vacant they should be filled from the Civil Service register.

Senator MCKELLAR. Are you suggesting the same language in this instance?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Exactly.

Senator TAFT. I do not quite understand. The five employees are now paid from what appropriation?

Mr. SAUNDERS. They are now paid from the appropriation for the United States Employment Service.

Senator TAFT. You are going to get the money somewhere elese? Mr. SAUNDERS. We have the vacant positions in the office of the Secretary.

Senator TAFT. If they are paid from the appropriation for the United States Employment Service, why are they not automatically transferred by the President's order to another division?

Mr. SAUNDERS. One of the reasons is that the appropriation for the Employment Service is less than the money we had the year before The staff has to be reduced anyway. That operation normally would eliminate the persons working in the office of the Secretary when the activities are transferred. These are old employees.

DESIRE TO EMPLOY FIVE CLERKS WITHOUT CIVIL-SERVICE STATUS

Senator TAFT. You want a provision to take in these five employee without regard to the civil-service requirements?

Mr. SAUNDERS. That is the idea exactly. One of them has been in the service 10 years or more.

Senator TAFT. I certainly do not see what that question has to de with the appropriation bill.

Mr. SAUNDERS. The money cannot be used unless made availabl by Congress for that purpose. We now have language in the bil and have had for 5 years, covering employees who were on the ol Textile Board, but who had no civil-service status.

Senator BURKE. These five individuals would have to be replace by persons appointed from the Civil Service register?

Mr. SAUNDERS. That is the idea.

Senator MCKELLAR. We will give consideration to the matter an try to work it out.

Mr. SAUNDERS. What we have suggested is the humane thing do. Also it would keep five experienced employees who are familia with the work of the office of the Secretary, instead of having break in new employees.

Senator MCKELLAR. Are there any other items?

Mr. SAUNDERS. There are no other items, except the cleric

changes. I assume you do not wish us to discuss them. Senator MCKELLAR. No.

UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

(The following memorandum was placed in the record upon request of Senator Truman:) APRIL 24, 1939.

The attached statement shows, in summary form, the effect of the approval by the House of our appropriation request for the fiscal year 1940. The most serious reduction is, of course, in the personal-services category. As you know, with the exception of seven positions, all new Wagner-Peyser positions requested were to provide for employees now working in the Service and paid from National Reemployment Service funds.

The tentative allocation of the reduction in departmental personal services has been made as follows:

Division of Operations -

Divisions of Standard and Research.

Office of the Director

Division of Personnel Administration.
Division of Business Administration -

Assigned to the Department of Labor

Total necessary reduction in departmental personal services

$13, 100 10,940

5, 640

5, 220

4, 240

1,500

40, 640

Of the total reduction of $40,640, $17,980 represents the amount requested for entirely new positions and the balance of $22,660 represents a curtailment in salaries of employees now working in the Service and paid from emergency fards.

The allocation of the reduction in field personal services is proving very difficult, and we have not been able to complete a revision of this part of the budget to bring it within the amount approved.

The reductions made in the other categories, with the exception of travel expenses, can probably be met by the observance of the strictest economy, and by the releasing of space now occupied in the Bond Building and housing of that unit either with the group now on F Street or in the Department of Labor Building. The amount of $172,800 requested for travel expenses is substantially less than the amount of $236,860 requested from the Bureau of the Budget, which latter amount was felt to be necessary to meet contemplated travel expense for the fiscal year 1940.

The House Appropriations Commmittee in its report indicated that a reduction of $5,000 should be applied to this Service in the amount approved for the travel appropriation for all activities of the Department of Labor. I believe it is very doubtful that even if this $5,000 were restored we should have sufficient funds to take care of our travel needs during 1940. We estimate that we shall expend $157,000 for travel expenses during the current fiscal year, with the field auditing unit operating at only 50 percent capacity. Therefore, if any effort should be made to restore any of this amount, it should be indicated that the amount of $172.500 is not considered adequate to meet the travel requirements of this Service and that a sum nearer to $230,000 will be needed.

Status of appropriation request for 1940 as approved by the House of Representatives

Total, direct United States Employment Service appropria

Don

STATEMENT OF THE UNITED FEDERAL WORKERS OF AMERICA BEFORE THE SENAT APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

The United Federal Workers of America is a union of Federal employees affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and has locals in a branches of the Government service. Its membership includes employees of th Department of Labor.

The Labor Department should serve as a model for other governmental agenci in its operation and its personnel policy because of the nature of its own wor Adequate appropriations for a model personnel policy are necessary in order put into effect the provisions contained in the Classification Act. The attenti to personnel policy and administrative increases should not be limited to t departmental service in Washington, however, but the field should be given full share of attention.

The Employment Service, which has been making more and more of a cont bution to the placement of workers in the jobs for which they are qualified, be by ability and education, must be allowed to continue with its present staff. 1 ask that the cut made by the House on the Budget estimates be restored, and t Employment Service appropriation for salaries be raised to $1,178,420. T House has seen fit to grant increased payments to the States, in the sum $3,480,000, but has failed to provide the money for the necessary personnel administer the money appropriated.

PERSONNEL POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

The Department of Labor, since its creation in 1913, has ably carried out purpose of advancing the interests of the wage earners of the country and maintained an interest in its own employees as well.

However, a good personnel policy is not enough, unless the Department sufficient funds for carrying out its policies. Since 1930 only a very small num of Labor Department employees have received increases. During 1932 and 1 there was only one administrative increase through the entire Labor Departm However, conditions improved gradually until 1937 when 18 percent of employees received administrative increases. But, since that time, the situa has not changed.

The House adopted the policy of granting one-step increases to emplo making $1,800 per year or less who have not received a salary increase for last 2 years, and to employees making from $1,800 to $3,000, provided they l not received a salary increase for the last 5 years.

The Department of Labor should be allowed to follow the law as set fort the Classification Act of 1923 and sufficient money appropriated so that e employee with a rating of "good" may receive a salary increase after a ye service.

We have made a survey of the Department in Washington and find that cost involved in following out this policy is not great. The table which fol indicates the increases necessary beyond the amount contained in the bill passed the House.

TABLE I

[This table indicates by bureaus the total amounts needed, the amounts included in the present appr tion bill, and the additional amounts necessary to provide for 1 step increases for employees with 1 service in these grades who did not receive an increase in the past year]