Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

for the use and benefit of our Chicago firemen. Third, it is a fact that the cost of social security to the employers and employees has risen sharply during the past 10 years and will continue to increase. Should we be subject to the law, we will no longer be permitted to increase our payments in the areas we believe are important and will have no control whatsoever as to the application of increased contributions to a particular, needed benefit. This we can do, presently, and we wish to retain this privilege.

In conclusion, we would ask the committee to note that each Congress which has considered this problem since the act became effective, has found sufficient reason in our arguments to retain the exclusion feature. There is not, in our opinion, any new or added factor which would justify removal of the exclusion at this time. We request, therefore, that section 11 of H.R. 11865 be stricken in its entirety. In making our statement, we adopt, in its entirety, the presentation made by the International Association of Fire Fighters.

PHILADELPHIA, PA., August 7, 1964.

Senator HARRY BYRD,

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

The firefighters of Philadelphia Local 22 IAFF AFL-CIO seek your support in Senator Ribicoff's amendment to bill S. 1174 which is the firefighters position on the Social Security legislation which is now pending before this session of the Senate. Our membership solicits your support and the committee's on this matter.

RAYMOND M. HEMMER, President, Local 22 City Firefighters IAFF AFL-CIO.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 91
Parkersburg, W. Va., August 3, 1964.

Senator HARRY BYRD,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

SIR: I have been informed that the Senate Finance Committee is now considered bill H.R. 11865. We are most concerned about a provision of that bill which will remove the blanket exclusion of firefighters from the Social Security Act.

The Firefighters Local No. 91 have voted unanimously to let you know that we do not feel our best interests are being served by being included in this or any other attempt to extend us coverage under social security.

Firemen certainly do not object to higher benefits for any worker covered by social security, we merely wish to point out that firefighters do not wish to be covered. The only fault we find with H.R. 11865 is the section which seeks to remove the exclusion of firefighters from social security.

The firefighters exclusion clause has been part of section 218 of the Social Security Act since it was enacted. We feel this is more beneficial to us as a group for two main reasons.

(1) The great majority of the existing pension laws and plans for firefighters, because of the hazardous nature of their duties, allows retirement at an earlier age and with more adequate pension than is obtainable under social security. (2) The average firefighters retirement system provides a disability pension for a firefighter at any age if he is disabled in the line of duty to such a degree that he can no longer perform his duties in the department. This is not so under social security. In order to be eligible for disability benefits under social security a worker must (a) have earned the required number of quarters, and (b) it must be "determined medically that is is so disabled he cannot perform any type of gainful employment and there is little hope of recovery from the disability," in the words of a spokesman for the Social Security Administration in Washington.

State and local authorities have long recognized the need for a separate retirement plan for firefighters because of the hazardous nature of their work.

After weighing all the facts, we cannot help but feel that you will find our position well founded and that we can rely on you to do all in your power to have that portion of bill H.R. 11865, which deals with the blanket removal of firefighters from the Social Security Act, either excluded or amended before this bill is made law.

Very truly yours,

A. T. SMITH, President, Local No. 91.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. DALE, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER, ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF KENTUCKY, IN BEHALF OF H.R. 1165 The Associated Professional Fire Fighters of Kentucky desires to use this means to speak for the adoption of S. 1174; i.e., H.R. 11865.

Speaking for the members of 10 city fire departments, consisting of over 1,200 members-Ashland, Bowling Green, Covington, Henderson, Hopkinsville, Lexington, Louisville, Newport, Owensboro, and Paducah, not to discount our members' families in the other city fire departments of Kentucky, who have no spokesman.

We ask that S. 1174 be adopted which would prohibit the damage and uncorrectible injury to the pension system; i.e., Kentucky firefighters.

We find nothing in section 11, H.R. 11865 which would benefit the firefighters now or in the future.

We feel the language, i.e., House Ways and Means Committee report H.R. 11865 to facilitate the extension of social security coverage to State and local government retirement system will not help the firefighter but will only tend to weaken and in the end destroy present pension systems.

You will find no group or groups of firefighters which would avail themselves should section 11 pass and should the Kentucky State Legislature, by statute, allow referendum by groups to purchase Federal social security, realizing of course, that the Kentucky State Legislature could take an affirmative action, whereas group or groups of firefighters would not have the right to referendum. The Kentucky firefighter, depending on his area or locale, have in operation pension systems far superior to that of anything the Federal social security can offer. We are sure you will agree that Congress cannot guarantee that pension systems on a State or local level cannot and will not be abandoned. There may be a time when social security will be a national thing, i.e., a method whereas all workers can retire upon reaching a fixed age after meeting requirements of said system, but it is our judgment this is many years in the future.

In the areas where firefighters have no retirement plans, these States and communities have the right to include their fire department personnel under social security now as it is written. We are sure you will agree section 11, H.R. 11865 will not help these groups now or in the future.

The very nature of the firefighting profession is recognized as hazardous, with many being injured in the line of duty and are forced to retire while others pay the supreme price by losing their lives. The local government recognizes this and provides retirement at the early age of 51 and 20 years' service, both being equal, upon request by said firefighter, with a retirement of 50 percent of base pay, with the widow receiving the same amount. Coverage from the date of employment for on-duty injuries and full 24-hour coverage when the member reaches 5 to 10 years' service, depending upon his own individual system, with the firefighter paying from 4 to 6 percent with mandatory retirement 55 to 62 years of age, and again depending upon his own system.

Recognizing that the Federal social security system is designed to cover the Nation as a whole as a survivorship insurance plan and not to be misconstrued as a retirement system but must be supplemented by other income upon retirement. while our pension systems are designed for the full retirement of our members upon the attainment of a fixed age, plus protection for said firefighters' families. Coverage of employees of State and local governments is by means of a voluntary agreement entered into by a State with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The State has the responsibility for initiating such an agreement and for determining within the framework of Federal and State law what groups of employees will be brought under the agreement and when such coverage shall be effective.

The 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act provided the basis for covering under such an agreement employees who are in positions under a retirement system providing a majority of the eligible members of the system vote in favor

of coverage. However, such coverage was qualified by section 218(d) (5) (A) of the Social Security Act, which specifically prevents the extension of coverage of policemen and firemen in positions covered by a retirement system.

This exclusion of policemen and firemen in positions under a retirement system from coverage under the old age survivors' and disability insurance program was as a result of requests made by our international organization along with members of the police departments. The history of our opposition as recorded in the various congressional sessions indicates that, because of the hazardous nature of our work, firefighters as well as policemen usually have special provisions in their retirement systems which provide for retirement after 20 years of service or retirement at the age 50 or 55. Because of these factors our organization felt it would be unwise to coordinate the retirement systems of the firefighters with the old-age survivors' and disability insurance program.

As the result of the 1956, 1957, and 1959 amendments to the Social Security Act (under the guise of senatorial courtesy), the prohibition in the Federal law with respect to the firefighters and policemen in positions under a retirement system was lifted with respect to the States of Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Maine, and Washington. Under section 218(p) of the Social Security Act, these States may, if they wish, extend coverage to their firefighters and police who are in positions under a retirement system, providing the referendum requirements of the Social Security Act section 218 (d) (3), where applicable, section 218(d) (7) are complied with.

The Federal law section 218(d) (6) gives these States in certain cases the option of dividing a single retirement system into smaller units. Each unit is deemed to be a retirement system. A separate referendum is held with respect to each unit or each "deemed retirement system."

If a retirement system covers employees of the State and employees of one or more political subdivisions of the State, the State is given the following choice (subject, of course, to the limitation of State law) with respect to what shall be "deemed retirement system" for the purpose of a referendum.

(1) It may hold a referendum for the entire system.

(2) It may hold a referendum for State employees and separate referenda for each political subdivision.

(3) It may hold one referendum for State employees and employees of any one or more political subdivisions.

(4) It may hold a referendum for any single political subdivision or combination of political subdivisions.

If a retirement system covers firefighter positions only or policemen's positions only, the above represents the only options available to the States as to what shall constitute a retirement system for referendum purposes. However, if a retirement system covers firemen's positions and policemen's positions or firemen's positions, policemen's positions and other positions, the State, after it has exercised one of the four options noted above, has the additional option of holding a referendum for only those employees under the "deemed retirement system" who are in firemen's positions, or holding a referendum for only those employees under the "deemed retirement system" who are in policemen's positions, or of holding a referendum for employees under the "deemed retirement system" who are in firemen's and policemen's positions.

*** under Federal law further divide a "deemed retirement system" if they wish on the basis of the desires of the members and included under the State agreement only those members of the retirement system desiring old-age survivors and disability insurance coverage. It should be noted, however, that the division and subsequent coverage of members of a retirement system in this manner shall result in the compulsory coverage of all new members of the system. The above represents what the Federal law provides with respect to the coverage of firefighters and/or policemen who are in positions under a retirement system. However, such coverage is also subject to State law and the provisions of the State's old-age survivor's and disability insurance coverage agreement. While State law may not, of course, be broader than the Federal law with respect to the coverage of employees of State and local government under the old-age survivor's and disability insurance program, it may be more restrictive. For example, the laws of some States do not permit a retirement system to be divided for referendum and coverage purposes on the same basis and to the same extent as the Federal law does. While the Federal law states certain requirement with respect to a referendum, such matters as what form the ballot shall take, the length of voting periods, or where the balloting should take place; vote by mail, proxies,

etc., are matters left to the discretion of the State. The State also has the responsibility for determining what constitutes a firefighter position.

The extension of social security is thus dependent upon action both by the U.S. Congress and by the respective State legislators.

History

SOCIAL SECURITY

In 1950 social security was extended to public employees not covered by a State or local retirement system. A number of States dissolved existing local retirement plans.

In 1954 those cities and States under local retirement system could come into social security provided:

1. State enact enabling legislation.

2. Conduction of a referenda to determine desire of those in retirement system.

But there was exclusion of police and firemen in Section 218, d-5 because Social Security was not suited to the special nature of their occupation.

Basic questions to be asked about Social Security coverage are:

1. Initiation of referendums.

2. Options available for conduction referendums.

3. Group included in referendums.

4. Effective data of coverage.

5. Combination of social security with existing retirement system.
(a) Integration

(b) Supplementation

(c) Offset

6. Safeguards of own pension system.

Since 1954 the exclusion of police and firefighters has been removed in 16 States during the different years of legislative action. These states and years

are:

1956: Florida, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota.

1957: Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Hawaii.

1958: Washington.

1959: California, Kansas, North Dakota, Vermont.

1960: Virginia.

1962: Maine.

We ask that S. 1174 be adopted, whereas, leaving the firefighter the right to provide for his own needs through his own efforts and his own local government.

STATEMENT OF THE FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO RELATING TO SECTION 11 OF H.R. 11865

The Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago appreciates this opportunity to file its opposition to the proposed amendment modifying section 11, so as to permit the inclusion of firemen within the coverage of social security. Since the first presentation of the Wagner bill in the Congress of the United States, this organization has been opposed to the inclusion, within the coverage of social security, of firemen. Various amendments that have been made in the system, and the various improvements made in the program, have never changed the feeling of this organization that the best interests of firemen would be served by their exclusion from coverage of social security. Irreparable damage would be done, not only to the retirement system of which firemen presently are members, but to the firemen themselves, by reason of the changes which would be required to be made in the system in the event social security coverage was extended to firemen. For these reasons we respectfully urge that section 11 of H.R. 11865 be removed and nullified, in order that the aforementioned damage will not be done to members of our organization. Removal of the exemption of firemen from coverage by social security would be the first step in doing away with the retirement system of these employees.

The annuity and benefit fund is a creation of the Legislature of the State of Illinois and has for its purpose taking care of aged and disabled firemen, their widows, and children. The retirement benefits have been built up, through the years, by members of the retirement system, and not only provide for a mere subsistence, but permit their beneficiaries to live in a respectable fashion.

While it is apparent from the records of the committee that they believe that there are sufficient safeguards at the State level to protect any firemen who does not wish to participate in social security, in the State of Illinois such safeguards do not exist, per se, even though at the present time the social security enabling legislation which has been adopted by the State of Illinois requires a vote of two-thirds of a retirement system for its members to be included under social security. It still means that if the full one-third membership were opposed to social security, they would be forced to participate by reason of the wishes of the other two-thirds. This enabling act now in existence in the State of Illinois could be modified at any session of the legislature to require a bare majority, or to set up a divisional method, which then would require all new members coming into the fire department to be covered by social security without giving them a choice in the matter. The great danger existing in the removing of the exemption of possible coverage of social security to firemen is the cost that would be involved, which would be required to be borne by the employer, who actually is the taxpayer. The employer, at the present time, contributes to the support of the retirement system for the benefit of its employees. If the employer were called upon to make additional contributions by reason of coverage for these employees by the Social Security Act, it would not be long before the employer would find it necessary to reduce his contribution to the retirement system, and thus the benefits that have been built up over the course of years by the firemen of the city of Chicago would be dangerously reduced.

The occupation of firemen is an extremely hazardous one; they are exposed to all kinds of inclement weather, heat, cold, noxious fumes, danger of falling walls, and collapsing buildings. Because of the very nature of their occupation, firemen are not able to stay on the job and perform these hazardous services, until they reach the age which would be required by social security to secure benefits. Because of the strenuous nature of their duties, and the wear and tear upon their physical conditions, the retirement system which the firemen themselves have helped to create and build up through means of their own contributions, has provided for earlier retirement, by a number of years, than that age which is provided for retirement under the Social Security Act. This retirement system is tailored to meet the needs and requirements of firemen and the duties which they perform. It is not a blanket coverage for all municipal employees, regardless of the job, or nature of the work they do. The Federal social security system has as its basis the basic needs of the working population, generally, of the United States. Originally the contributions were small, but over the years it has begun to approach the rate of contribution made by members of retirement systems. Benefits, however, are merely based for a subsistence level for those who participate in it. Benefits are not specifically designed to meet the needs of employees in hazardous occupations.

What would disable a fireman from performance of duty in the fire department need not necessarily qualify him for disabiilty payments under the Social Security Act. A plan which is designed to meet the needs of the fireman, based on his salary and his years of service is an arrangement between the employer and the employee. In social security there exists no individual equity as far as the employee is concerned. Contributions are not earmarked to provide protection for a specific employee or his widow, as is done in this retirement system. It must be remembered that a municipality, or the State in which the municipality is located, has the right to terminate this retirement system at any time, and if an additional burden, taxwise, were to be placed on the municipality by reason of the inclusion of firemen within the coverage of social security, the temptation to change or terminate the retirement system would be greatly increased.

We realize that a great many people feel that there is no real danger to the retirement systems which now exist by removing this exemption, because of socalled safeguards which have been set up by the States. The safeguards existing in the State's social security enabling act may be changed at any time by the legislature, and what actually appears to be a safeguard may be only a paper wall.

The declaration contained in the existing law, that it is the policy of Congress that the protection afforded members of the State or local government retirement systems should not be impaired by the result of the extension of social security coverage to members of the retirement system, are fine-sounding words and an excellent thought, but doesn't necessarily have any effect upon the members of the legislature who would control future coverage of social security on the firemen in the event the exemption were removed.

« PředchozíPokračovat »