The Oregon state employee., July 01, 1947, Page 8, Image 8

6
Jean Brimacombe, assistant to the sec­
retary; Leo Smith, legal counsel;
Bjarne Ericksen, president; and Virgil
G. O’Neil, director of public relations.
Also present was Mrs. Barsch, assistant
attorney general, and writer of the
attorney general’s opinion. Department
and employee representation was on
hand from the offices of the Secretary
of State, the Oregon State Highway
Department, the State Printing De­
partment, and the A. F. of L. State,
County and Municipal Employee, Paul
Walker.
O.S.E.A. speakers against the pro­
posed changes were Forrest Stewart,
Virgil G. O’Neil and Leo Smith. Mr.
Walker also spoke against the pro­
posals, and it is understood that writ­
ten objections were handed in from
the Highway Department^ the A. F.
of L., as well as from the Association.
Only the Attorney General’s represen­
tative favored the proposed changes.
The Commission was asked why the
proposed changes were necessary and
what is wrong with the present rules;
with reference to the meaning- of a
"work day” and why the substitution
of the term "business day.” N o answer
was given except "to get away from
confusion.” Other reasons apparently
are not to be made public.
Speakers Outline Points
Forrest Stewart spoke briefly in in­
troduction, stressing the aims of the
OiS.E.A., its recognized position as
representing a majority of state em­
ployees and stressing that our objec­
tions to the attorney general’s opinion
were on the premise that it was ren­
dered on a propounded question which
was not entirely germane to or fully
representative of the real issue involved.
Virgil O’Neil next spoke, stressing
the inconsistencies, discrimination, ab­
surdities and unfairness o f t£e changes.
He also questioned the ethics of the
Commission in the method resorted to
in trying to change the meaning of
the law by the use of coined expres-
| sions in the rules.
Leo Smith then spoke on the history
of legislative actions leading to the
creation of the Civil Service A ct; point­
ing out that it is ah employees measure,
that the Commission’s duties under it
are to administer it fairly to the em­
ployees interests and protection. He
showed that the present rules are con­
sistent with the act and that the pro­
posed change in interpreting "days” or
"work days” would be in direct con­
flict with the expressed wording and
intent of the act. He appealed to the
Commission to remain above their own
personal opinions, if and when in vari­
ance therewith, and to administer the
A ct in accordance with its clear intent.
Vacation Leave Practices Now in Effect
For -state employees in California, a
calendar week o f vacation uses up
five (5) days of their earned accumu­
lation regardless of and entirely aside
from the >; number of hours or days
they work in a week.
In Federal Service, where employees
accumulate 26 work days vacation per
year, a calendar week of vacation
counts, a f i v e (5) days of vacation
leave. This is because they now work
on a five-day week basis. Their vaca­
tion days earned are'worA. day's.
The Oregon State Highway Depart­
ment, with 2,000 or more employees,
has for years recognized one working
day leave for each leave day earned.
Also that-deductions for leaves with­
out pay should be for employees work­
ing days (to the nearest % day) N O T
worked by the employee.
Industrial labor contracts are always
based on the workman’s work time.
Some even say that Saturdays is always
a time and one-half pay day and that
Sundays are double-time days.
Some Oregon state departments and
institutions have held for years to a
policy that there are no half-working
days when deducting from an em­
ployee’s pay check for absence from
work. Although expected to be op the
job only one-half day on a Saturday
(for instance), absence therefrom costs
the employee a full days deduction
from his pay. This principle of being
liberal in deducting has also been ap­
plied to leaves with pay. Prior to civil