13
ficials feel the same responsibility, it is
questioned why an elective official finds
Civil Service so much more distasteful
than do appointed ones. O f course, un
der Civil Service, an employee^ does not
get a job through political influence,
but rather on the basis of. qualifications
for the job. Is that principle bad for
elective ^officials interested in efficient
government?
An employee who feels that his su
periors should make their own appoint
ments without recourse,; to the Civil
Service principle of "appointment by
qualification and m erit” immediately
raises the question in his hearers’ minds
that compliance w ith Civil Service reg
ulations might leave him ineligible. U n
der Civil Service, such ambitious em
ployees and all employees who desire
appointments to higher positions are
equal in their opportunity to , get the
job. Each takgs'the same tests to show
hisggbilitie'sand the most qualified are
giyen the first chance to accept and to
be accepted for the job. That seems fair
enough, but there is a second chance for
some as, under Civil Service^ the ap
pointing authority does not have to ac
cept the first chance employees (as de
termined by competitive tests) but may
reject them within limits and receive
new names from which to choose. T hat
seems fair enough, also, to protect an
appointing authority from being bur
dened with undesirable subordinates.
That the work of the Civil Service
Department is enlarging is true. It has
had to struggle along on a; pitifully
small budget and has been called on to
meet ever-growing personnel needs of
the State. Only because of administra
tive efficiency has itAbeen able to do
such a creditable job in putting the A ct
into effect while at the same time be
ing unduly burdened w ith thousands of
personnel changes and problems brought
on by low pay scales. As to its cost, it
budget-limited and operates under
manned. I t’s wage^scales are/is^relative-
ly low as those of the rest of the State
employees. The only way this D epart
ment can be considered costly is that it
has not been permitted to operate as
fully as the A ct intends it should. It has
received too little help from adminis
trator and employee alike. Oregon has a
good Civil Service A ct; it should be
given a chance to fully operate before
hasty, destructive criticism and judg
ment is passed upon it.
The objection that the higher paid
workers get the larger increases smacks
of envy and dissatisfaction. Very few
of us know our own worth, but we all
have ideas about it. The OSEA is on rec
ord as favoring higher salaries for top
State Officials. It is also on record for
parity pay for all employees. That does
not mean $15,000 a year for every em
ployee if that amount is the top wage
in State service. It is the OSEA policy
that each employee’s service is worth
what other States and private industry
are willing to pay for like service. If an
accountant would like the pay given a
professional doctor, it must be proven
that others'; are williiig to pay that ac
countant the^doptor’s wage scale. Under
Civil Service, the principle is that of "a
proper wage schedule for each classified
position commensurate with the recog
nized standard scale for that position.”
It is, granted that;,all wa^gSwaid by the
State are comparatively low. It is not a
fact that any single one of the present
wage scales is too high. If one classifi
catio n 's raised to help overcome fits de
ficiency, that is not in error. Many im
portant position^ in the higher brackets
would be entirely unfilled today if some
of the wage scales had not been m ater
ially increased. The unfortunate; Condi
tion, back of this particular complaint
is that the State is very, very slow in
correcting its errors of the past— all
wages need raising in the interest of
public service. There are many incon
sistencies in effect which need correc
tion. There is nothing gained by calling
the whole rotten because some of its
parts are wormy; I
Retirement Act Prospects Are Favorable
In discussing objections to Oregon’s