This "big brother" approach mentioned in your letter to Chairman Macy (reference Federal Employees' News Digest dated July 18, 1966) will accelerate the high turnover in government jobs (reference Federal Employees' News Digest dated July 4, 1966). The The importance of your committee's function cannot be overemphasized. National Association of Government Inspectors would appreciate inclusion on your mailing lists for continued active support of your committee's action. Respectively yours, WILLIAM A. JAMES, National President. PHILADELPHIA POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 89 UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS, AFL-CIO, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: May I take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the Officers and Members of this Local, as well as fellow Postal Employees, for your untiring efforts on their behalf; first, in your support of past beneficial legislation and the present expose of pressure tactics used by the higher level Government Officials in the Saving Bonds Sales, Fund Drives, etc. I am enclosing our last edition of the Local paper and as Editor I have taken liberty of using your name and quotes you made pertaining to pressure tacticsfor this I beg your indulgence. This edition has been in the hand of our membership for the past few weeks and has drawn quite a few comments of what some of our employees were subject to when they refused to join the drive. We are now about to enter our current United Fund drive which should prove interesting. The Officers and Members of this Local support you and your committee and wish for your continued success and good health. Respectfully yours, THOMAS F. DEVINE, Corresponding Secretary. [From the Philly Sentinel, Philadelphia Post Office Employees, Local 89, United Federation of Postal Clerks, AFL-CIO, July-August 1966] OF CONCERN TO YOU... (Tom Devine) We are entering a period of inquisition in the Govermnent Service and the results may prove detrimental to the career employee. This inquisition in the form of qeustionnaires and tests-to find out how we tick-is an invasion of our privacy. As loyal Americans we do not mind signing allegiance pledges or any paper pertaining to the national security BUT we call a halt, in our case the Postal Worker to any forms having no connection with our work or the efficient operation of the Postal Service. A short time ago before the Progess Skill Report-each employee was issued a "Minority Group Status" card, which provided a series of blocks for us to indicate our desire to choose, American Indian, Negro, Oriental, Spanish-American, None of These. Just a few years ago orders were issued that any form containing a request to indicate race or national origin, such a question was not to be answered. Later such forms were to be considered obsolete and destroyed; replaced with new ones that omitted like questions. Now the cycle has run its course and we are again to answer such questionsthough the form is different. Were this the only problem we had to face we could live with it but more hideous things are in store for us. In some agencies they have conducted inquiries as to the employee's religious belief, family and sexual matters. We, the Government employee, have been coerced to give to the United Fund, Federal Agencies Appeal: Buy U.S. Saving Bonds and to support political parties. Later the Postal Employee may have to follow other government workers in disclosing personal finances as well as those of relatives, attend lectures, to 71-994-6723 participate in community functions (having nothing to do with our jobs) and to conform our personal activities, behavior and associations outside the office to agency rules and a supervisor's whim. After we have completed this series, we will then have the "pleasure" of psychiatric interviews, psychological testings and lie detector tests-probably to check the answers given in the Progress Skill Reports. Economy be damned! why worry about guidelines and causing inflation (unless you own a paper or printing industry) when the government worker can be harassed, intimidated and upset to the point of performing a substandard day's work, after facing the prospect of investigations and interrogations whether it be oral or written. Like a great deal of orders or directives that are intended to hit a certain group, in this case the political appointees, it (the order) backfires and effects the whole structure of government personnel, in twenty-two agencies alone fortythousand employees were forced to disclose their inner-most secrets. An outgrowth of this program by the "brilliant architects" (of the orders and questionnaires mentioned) may, if not already, cause widespread resignations and retirement of long service career employees as well as proving a detriment to highly qualified civilians contemplating entry into the Government Service. All s not lost as we have a champion, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina, who has instituted a bill to protect the constitutional rights of government employees and to prevent unwarranted invasions of their privacy. Senator Ervin has stated, in a letter to President Johnson, "the euphemism dreamed up by the Civil Service Commission that the forms are "voluntary" is sheer nonsense, for the tactics employed to gain compliance in some agencies have become wholesale harassment of employees." We owe Senator Ervin a debt of gratitude for his concern on our behalf and we should write him a note of appreciation. In addition to Senator Ervin we should contact our local Congressmen and Senators urging them to support Senator Ervin's Bill. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : The American Civil Liberties Union is deeply interested in S. 3779, introduced at your initiative with many co-sponsors, and I write to express our sincere appreciation to you for the concern for the rights and liberties of individuals in the federal service that is reflected in the long study you have made as well as in the terms of this specific proposal. We shall appear before your Subcommittee through Lawrence Speiser, Esq., our representative, as you have invited us to do, and will express detailed views on the specific provisions of the bill. I write now simply to add this note of deep gratitude, on behalf of myself as well as of the Union, for your concerns and those of the Subcommittee made manifest in the introduction of this measure and in the hearings being held. Very sincerely yours, LODGE REPORT JOHN DE J. PEMBERTON, Jr., AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, Greendale, Wis., October 17, 1966. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We are addressing you directly, as we are not informed as to which Senators are serving on the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Lodge 2144 positively supports S-3779. Our own members have objected to several types of objectionable practice, which your Bill should effectively stop. Even when a form, such as the minority group questionnaire, is accompanied by a cover letter stating participation is voluntary, everyone knows better. There are NO voluntary forms to be filled out. Every employee knows he better fill it out now, and avoid follow-up and a lecture later. A head count, which many employees would still object to, could, however, be easily accomplished by supervisory personnel, without the employees even knowing about it. Contrary to the government's position, a citizen does NOT lose his rights to privacy and dignity when he becomes a federal employee. S-3779 has become necessary because of methods apparently used to cover up poor management decisions and practices both in selection of new personnel, and in subsequent operations. It should be noted here, that responsible personnel, whose recommendations may well decide multi-million dollar contract negotiations, are currently in the position of being suspect to the loss of their perspective, or "selling out" for a $1.50 lunch. The time to stop management abuses, is NOW! Since agency heads have NOT cleaned their own houses, the only recourse of the government employee is to the Congress, and the Law. We would appreciate your conveying our sentiments on this issue, to the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Sincerely yours, WALTER L. RAUCHER, Secretary and Chairman of Legislative Committee, AFGE Lodge 2144. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS, Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The National Association of Government Engineers representing the professional engineers in government service extends to you their full support and cooperation on legislation which you are sponsoring to curb and stop further invasion into the government workers' personal affairs, finances, religious beliefs, etc. Your courage and leadership in the curbing of this creeping denial of individual rights is deeply appreciated by every employee of our Government. With kind regards and best wishes, I am Most cordially, ROY E. RIDDLE, U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a copy of a letter we have sent to Mr. John F. Griner, National President of AFGE, which we believe will be of interest to you since it concerns the subject of monitoring of telephones assigned to our taxpayer assistors and our OCF interviewers. With kind regards, SHELDON S. COHEN, Commissioner. U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Mr. JOHN F. GRINER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1966. National President, American Federation of Government Employees, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GRINER: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1966, concerning our practice of monitoring telephone conversations between taxpayers and Revenue personnel employed as taxpayer assistors or OCF (Office Collection Force) interviewers. Members of my staff met with Mr. Elmer Neumann of your AFGE staff on this subject in the afternoon of September 12 and were glad to give him the full story then, just as we are glad to give it to you now. We do, indeed, monitor or supervise some telephone conversations between taxpayers and our taxpayers assistors or OCF interviewers. This is done on a spot check basis and only in these functions. It is the employee's supervisor who does it. Every taxpayer assistor and every OCF interviewer has been notified of the practice. Every telephone assigned for use in the taxpayer assistance and OCF functions is prominently labeled, and the label plainly states that the telephone is subject to monitoring. We supervise these phone calls for several reasons-to check the accuracy of tax information furnished by these employees, and to insure absolute and unfailing courtesy on their part. paying public is entitled to such quality service. The taxTelephone calls to which our taxpayer assistors are a party are completely impersonal. The taxpayer initiates the call himself and need not even give his name. He seldom does so unless he wishes us to mail him a tax form or tax publication. Our taxpayer assistor may give his name when he answers the telephone, and will certainly give it if asked, but, in any event, he and the taxpayer are complete strangers to each other. Their conversation is neither private nor confidential in nature. Enclosed is a list of the 50 most asked questions. Telephone conversations involving these questions, or others similar to them, are monitored most often during the period January 1 through April 15, when we hire temporary taxpayer assistors at Grade 2 or 3 to handle the huge volume of routine income tax questions which we get at that time. The supervisor who monitors these calls does so in order to be sure that the taxpayer gets the right answer to his question and that our employee is polite throughout. In our taxpayer assistance groups, the supervisors may sit in a room in front of the assistors. There is nothing surreptitious about this supervision. In fact, when an employee receives a technical question on which he requires aid, he notifies the taxpayer and raises his hand so that his supervisor may come in on the line to aid in giving the proper answer. Telephone calls to which our OCF interviewers are a party are completely impersonal in the sense that both parties to the conversation are strangers to each other. Either one of them may initiate the call, but, in either case, the contact is made to discuss the particular tax situation of the particular taxpayer. The conversation is, indeed, private and confidential as between the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service. But it is not private or confidential as between the taxpayer and the particular OCF interviewer to whom he is speaking on the telephone. Tax information which comes to any OCF interviewer, whether by telephone or otherwise, is freely available to other Revenue employees who have an official need to know. Disclosure to the public is forbidden by law, but within our own walls we do not keep tax information secret from those who have an official interest in it. Notable among these is the employee's supervisor, who has an official interest in the facts of the case and in the way our employee is handling it. He rarely supervises a call. When he does, it is solely to check performance of the interviewer. The performance of an employee is always subject to evaluation by his supervisor, and there are only three ways to go about it. The supervisor may watch what the employee does in the course of his official duties, listen to what he says in the course of his official duties, and read what he writes as a part of his official duties. The employee whose duties require him to prepare written responses to written inquiries knows very well that his supervisor will read what he has written and will evaluate it for accuracy and courtesy. The OCF interviewer or taxpayer assistor whose duties require him to give oral responses to oral inquiries cannot expect to have his performance go unnoticed, and since the work product here is conversation with taxpayers, we can evaluate only by listening to what is said. We may do this in any one of several ways. The supervisor may station himself near the employee and listen to one side of the conversation. He may pick up an extension telephone and listen to both sides. Or he may call in himself. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but only the second can be depended on to give a true picture of employee performance. After all, the employee soon becomes aware of the supervisor's presence when he stands nearby and soon learns to know him on the telephone if he makes repeat calls. The employee's behavior on any such occasion is bound to be influenced by his specific knowledge of the supervisor's presence. Considering the nature of the telephone conversations which we monitor and our purpose in monitoring them, I see no reason why our own employees or the taxpaying public should object. We have received no complaints from employees, nor have we received any from taxpayers. I see no reason for resentment or apprehension. I have not touched on the subject of legality in this letter, since, as you say, your research in the matter is not complete. Our own research is complete, and we have no doubt as to the legality of what we are doing. As stated above, we also feel the present practice is well within the bounds of propriety and is beneficial to the taxpaying public. If you have any doubts as to legality after you have completed your study, please feel free to contact us and we will be glad to go into the matter with you. With kind regards, SHELDON S. COHEN, Commissioner. EXHIBIT A PRIORITY LIST OF FREQUENT INQUIRIES Listed below, in priority order, are a list of the most frequently ask questions and areas of inquiry documented during the 1966 Extended Temporary Taxpayer Assistor Study. 1. Request for forms. 2. Office hours, address and assistance days. 3. Gasoline and sales tax. 4. Where do I file my return? 5. Tax computation (read table). 6. How do I prepare 1040-1040A? 7. Check computation. 8. When will I get my refund? 9. Who is considered a dependent? 10. How to obtain W-2 from employer. 11. Should I use 1040 or 1040A? 12. Is full-time student a dependent? 13. Auto tags and drivers license. 14. Filing requirement for over 65. 15. Medical deductions. 16. Must interest be reported as income? 17. Is Social Security income taxable? 18. Must a full-time student file a return? 19. Auto sales tax. 20. How to compute sick pay. 21. Who must file a return? 22. Utility tax. 23. Must I file if income is less than $600? 24. Educational expenses. 25. Carrying charges. 26. 10¢ per mile-transportation. 27. Must interest on child's savings be reported as income? 28. Who should file a joint return? 29. Contributions. 30. When do I file my return? 32. Minimum standard deduction. 37. Are child care payments deductible? 38. Cigarette and alcohol tax. 39. Is child support payments income? 40. Travel to and from work. 41. How and where do I report moving expenses? 42. Must I include all W-2's with return? 43. How long do I keep, books, records and receipts? 44. Tax rates. 45. Can I deduct alimony pay? 46. What drugs are deductible? 47. Retirement income credit. 48. Surviving spouse. 49. Poll tax. 50. Blindness |