Mr. STEPHENS. Assuming it is, I wonder whether rehabilitation would be included within that appropriation. Mr. EMILY. No, that is another nonappropriated budget category set up in the division of medical services. Mr. STEPHENS. Has TVA ever asked people from OSHA to come in and evaluate the safety and health programs and the work place? Mr. EMILY. I don't know. Mr. STEPHENS. Who in your operation would have knowledge of that or responsibility for the safety and health program? Mr. EMILY. The division of environmental planning in my opinion, would be the organization that could respond to that. Mr. STEPHENS. On page 1 of your statement, you indicated there were these 140 people who had come back to work. You said over 70 of them would not have gone back without assistance. Do you know what percentage of those 140 had to accept jobs which were lower paying than what they did have before the injury? Mr. EMILY. I don't know. I don't have a record of that. Mr. GAYDOS. Any further questions? There being none, the Chair would like to thank Mr. Emily and Mr. Eckl. Thank you for your appearance. If you have additional information, upon our request, we would appreciate it if you would make it available. We are fully cognizant of an individual's right to privacy as it relates to certain information. Mr. EMILY. Should I send any of this information before I hear from you? Mr. GAYDOS. Anything that's not of a personal nature. I am only concerned as to a man's personal records. But the requests made by counsel will be appreciated. The committee appreciates your appearance and your candid responses to the questions. I hope you don't feel offended by questions asked by the committee. All that has been developed today will enable the other members of the committee to make a decision in this matter. You can feel certain in your own minds, that you have contributed, hopefully, to an ultimate solution. Mr. EMILY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GAYDOS. Is Mr. McCart in the audience? Let the record show the presence of Mr. John A. McCart, executive director, Public Employment Department, AFL-CIO. You have always been most cooperative and your testimony has always been most meaningful. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO Mr. MCCART. We presented our formal statement to the committee. Without objection, I would like to have it entered into the record. Mr. GAYDOS. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCart follows:] 94-539 78 - 19 Public Employee Department AFL-CIO 815 SIXTEENTH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 393-2820-21 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT July 18, 1977 Mr. Chairman, we commend you and the other distinguished members of this Subcommittee for your initiative in conducting this series of oversight hearings on the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). Our Department (Public Employee Department) of 29 AFL-CIO unions represents one-and-one-half million public employees. The membership of ten of those unions consists totally or significantly of federal and postal workers. You can appreciate that we share your concern that the FECA accomplish its purpose. There is a public interest in both the responsibilities of the agencies to their employees and in the prompt and efficient administration of the Act on behalf of the people of the United States. As a general proposition, FECA is a substantial law, which has served those employed in the federal and postal services well since its original enactment in 1916. Considerable adverse publicity has surrounded FECA in recent months. Federal agencies and the Postal Service, newspapers and television are pointing the finger at employees as responsible for spiralling compensation costs, malingering and taking undue advantage of FECA benefits. In view of the hue and cry about disability benefits being too liberal and allegations of abuse of the system by postal and federal workers, it is certainly appropriate for the Subcommittee to scrutinize the operation of the program. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, the Public Employee Department desires to state clearly that it does not condone any attempt by any covered worker to misuse FECA. Where evidence demonstrates abuse of the law or regulations, we advocate vigorous prosecution. The principal problem experienced by claimants is the snail's pace in handling compensation cases. Virtually all of our affiliated unions who have federal or postal employee members report inordinate delays in processing claims. We urge that every possible step be taken to reduce the time between the initial claim and its final adjudication. Case after case has literally waited for years without determination. The Subcommittee has received copious testimony on this problem from earlier witnesses, including union officials. For that reason, we will not belabor the issue. Attached to this statement are lists of cases in the Postal Service and the Tennessee Valley Administration, which vividly demonstrate the point. As a result of findings by the House Subcommittee on Manpower and Housing and the General Accounting Office, the Department of Labor established a Task Force to review the administration of FECA. That group produced its analysis and recommendations late last year. More than thirty proposals for improving management of FECA were presented. In conjunction with the unions most involved in the federal compensation program, the Public Employee Department delivered its reactions to those recommendations to the Department of Labor in May of this year. We believe the Task Force recommendations and the unions' responses should be examined carefully by the Subcommittee as it proceeds with its oversight of FECA. The Public Employee Department will be happy to share with the Subcommittee staff the material presented by us to the Department of Labor on work of the Task Force. We readily agree that the number and cost of paying compensation claims has increased. Several factors have contributed to this surge. Payments are based on a percentage of the injured worker's basic wage or salary--66-2/3% in the case of an unmarried employee, 75% for a married worker. Thus, increases in base pay cause entitlement to compensation to rise in dollars. As employees' awareness of the right to compensation for legitimate claims is heightened, more of them are apt to assert their injuries and occupational illnesses. Unions representing federal and postal employees have included in their labor education classes information on the FECA and the rights and obligations of workers under that law. Adjustment of benefits for workers and survivors on the permanent compensation rolls is geared to changes in the Consumer Price Index. Since it has risen sharply in recent years, the effect on compensation costs is apparent. The fact that the case load has increased is not peculiar to the federal compensation system. Agencies have expressed concern about the rise in claims involving hearing loss. As an example of what is happening elsewhere, the frequency of impairment from noise claims under state laws in California, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin has risen in recent years, and the incidence of hearing loss generally exceeds other medical causes of compensation claims.* While the Consumer Price Index has almost doubled since 1964, the expense of a hospital day in that period has grown by more than four times. This inflation in medical costs should be addressed by the Congress on a broader basis. But adjustments in physicians' fees and related medical costs are no basis for attacking the FECA program itself. It is not the injured or sick employee who has escalated medical costs, rather--like the FECA program itself--the employee and his or her family have suffered from this inflationary spiral. It is certainly appropriate that Congress, the Department of Labor, federal agencies and unions representing employees with compensable injuries or illnesses exert zeal in determining that FECA is administered in the manner intended by the national legislature in enacting the law and its amendments. At the same time, greater importance must be attached to the need for federal agencies to meet the problems they perceive with compensation by concentrating their resources on eliminating unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. The PED has long believed that it is to the greater mutual benefit of employees and agencies to prevent accidents or illnesses than to have to pay benefits when they happen. Unions associated with the Public Employee Department emphasize this aspect of trade union activity in |