Veterans - The
Partial
Exception to the
Merit Rule
Near the end of the Civil War,
on 3 March 1865, Congress passed
legislation giving hiring preference in government jobs to veterans honorably discharged due
to wounds or sickness incurred in
the line of duty, provided they were capable of doing the
job.
Officials in the Brooklyn Navy Yard even went so far as to tell
supervisors to review the work of the
Yard's present employees and if any were "found wanting in the
slightest degree," to discharge and replace them with veterans. [United States Civil Service Commission, Annual
Report, Fiscal Year 1937; New York Times, 24 June 1865.]
For a generation this policy boded well
for veterans, as the American navy
slumped into decay for most of the rest of the century,
leaving little work for the country's navy yards to
do. But by
the mid-1890s the new industrial age and global politics threatened to
render the American navy and America's overseas presence
ineffectual. Determined
to build a
world-class steel fleet the navy and the government instituted several
new policies that included a complete restructuring of warship
production on a steel
basis and the incorporating of civilian navy workers into the
classified
civil service, the latter as of 1896.*
A now aging workforce in
the navy yards, that included
many veterans, was seen as an obstacle by the navy, but one that
presented the navy with something of
a political dilemma. [*Only the white-collar force was
completely
brought into the civil service in that year. The blue-collar
workers were not brought in formally until 1912. However the
navy
could not change their conditions of work after 1896 without permission
from the Civil Service. For American naval history, see George Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S.
Navy, 1890-1990, 1994.]
But production quickly won out
over all other concerns. In 1897 Theodore Roosevelt, then
the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
toured many of the navy yards to review the progress then underway in
new construction and, also, to serve as a judge for the scores of
complaints that navy yard
workers had been filing over alleged political discrimination in
hirings
and firings. Veterans getting
the axe were particularly sore, taking their dismissals as a betrayal
of the rights owed them. Roosevelt spent two days touring the BNY in mid-May
and took a fair amount of time to receive workers' grievances.
One such veteran, Abram Demott, said he had been discharged from the
iron
plating shop two weeks before. He and 200 others had answered
their country's call in 1862 and left
the BNY to join the army, and now he had just been fired so that
the Master
Shipfitter could hire his friends. After
listening to nearly 100 complaints Roosevelt later told reporters that
he thought only five or six had any merit to them. As he bluntly
and decisively put it, "most of the
complainants are
superannuated men who have seen their day and are useless in the
yard. I have made a hasty inspection of the yard, and have been
very much interested with what I have seen." [NYT 14 May 1897, 15 May 1987.]
In August 1897 the Navy Department
released another report on employment in the navy yards. In an
accompanying statement Roosevelt
said that navy yards must be as efficient as possible and many
long-term employees had simply become too old and infirm for
work. He
claimed that navy yards
had generously treated their veterans over the years and that
charges of political discrimination held no weight. Naval
policy, not the
law, had favored the retaining of veterans even over the more efficient
worker, but this attitude could no longer be tolerated. Workers
would now be
hired and kept on solely on their ability to do the work as judged
by yard officers; the inefficient would be let go. The officials
might
make mistakes but "on the whole they will undoubtedly retain the men
most capable of doing that work." Such dismissals and protests
continued into the new century, as in one case the New York Times
reported in 1903 where the BNY let go a laborer supervisor and a number
of laborers. [NYT 12 August 1897, 9 October 1903.]
The next major influx of veterans into the
federal workforce came
with the ending of the Great War
in 1918. An act of 3 March 1919 amended the civil service hiring
procedure by giving a
five-point
bonus on entrance
tests for classified positions in Washington, D.C. to
the honorably
discharged, their widows, and the wives of veterans too disabled to
work. On 11 July 1919,
this bonus was extended to extended to federal jobs nationally.
The pull of veterans was a
strong one and in March 1923 President Harding issued an executive
order increasing the bonus to ten points for disabled veterans capable
of holding a job. At the very end of his
administration, Coolidge issued an executive order increasing the bonus
to ten points for the widows and wives. In addition, the new
regulation placed all three
groups qualifying for the ten-point bump at
the top of their hiring registers. The bonus award allowed a
qualified applicant to earn only a score of 65 [or 60 for disabled
veterans] to place them on the job registers. [Note: husbands and
widowers of female veterans did not qualify for any bonus.] Once
hired, as long as they
maintained an efficiency
rating of at least
eighty they could not lose their jobs, and if their scores fell lower
they still held priority in "reductions of force" over other workers
holding an equivalent
efficiency
rating. [USCSC,
ARFY 1933; ARFY 1937; USCSC, History of Veteran
Preference in Federal Employment,
1865-1955; USCSC, General Information
Regarding the USCS; Letter, Acting
Secretary of the Navy, to AN&MCAC, 21 March 1929; RG181; NA-NY.]
The merit
system, based on hiring tests and efficiency ratings once hired,
was the very core of the civil service system. Therefore, what
these regulations and orders show is that given a political rationale
of some strength, in this case the wish to confer privileges to those
who served in the armed forces, that the government was willing to make
exception to the principle of merit despite any potential harm to
production it might cause. As we have seen, this contradiction
had already caused trouble in the 1890s, and it would continue to do so
throughout the life of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Often, the trouble
came when workers in good standing who had not served in
the armed forces were laid off in order to accommodate the hiring of
veterans. For instance, in 1920 the
national economy fell
into depression and the private shipbuilding industry nearly
disappeared. This shock was compounded with the naval disarmament
treaty signed that year that placed severe cutbacks and restraints on
naval shipbuilding. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels
ordered
navy yards and shore stations to restore to their former position every
man who had left noncombatant government work to enter
a fighting branch of the service, while making every effort not to
leave jobless those other men who had entered the navy yards in their
place. This conflict would be renewed with greater force after
the end of the next world war. [NYT, 6 March 1920.]
The Depression Years
At first, veterans continued to receive some further privileges.
In December 1929, the Attorney-General
extended the job protection provision to furloughs. This was
especially important for veterans in the BNY as 1930 marked the nadir
of employment in the Yard. A few months
later when the Civil Service lowered the hiring ages for government
workers to that necessary to qualify for a pension, it specifically
excluded veterans from the restriction. [
Letter, Acting Secretary of the Navy, to AN&MCAC, 16 December 1929;
NYT, 6 March 1930. For background, see: Paul
P. Van Riper,
History of
the United States Civil Service;
USCSC, History
of Veteran Preference.]
But even
veterans and their spouses had eventually to give some way to the needs
of the
moment even if only marginally. In April 1931, Hoover issued an
executive order amending his predecessor's, restricting the ten-point
bonus to veterans
with
service-connected disabilities,
or their wives, and limiting the register-bumping to just the
disabled veterans. By looking at employment numbers we can see
that in the Brooklyn Navy Yard for a year we have
figures, 1931, that as the year began veterans averaged a little over one-third
of the work
force. But as work picked up with the commencement of
construction on the New Orleans
the percentage of veterans slowly
declined even as their overall numbers increased, suggesting that under
the pressure of the Depression and the need for production that
lower-scoring veterans were being separated from the Yard's
rolls. By year's end their discharge perecentage equaled their
percentage of the workforce as a whole, where at the start of the year
it was lower. [Note: Discharges were often temporary, so
figures may reflect workers let go and then re-hired. Memo,
Commandant, to
Heads of Departments, Divisions, and Offices, 1
June 1931; RG181; NA-NY.]
A.
Veterans as a Percentage of the BNY Work Force, 1931 |
(Figures are
for the last day of the month) |
|
|
|
a |
b |
c |
d |
e |
f |
|
Jan. |
3041 |
1084 |
36 |
558 |
142 |
25 |
|
Feb. |
3422 |
1177 |
34 |
75 |
20 |
26 |
|
Mar. |
3330 |
1179 |
35 |
76 |
32 |
42 |
|
Apr. |
3289 |
1168 |
36 |
59 |
20 |
33 |
|
May |
3593 |
1210 |
34 |
123 |
45 |
36 |
|
Jun. |
3604 |
1170 |
32 |
107 |
34 |
31 |
|
Jul. |
3609 |
1186 |
33 |
216 |
53 |
24 |
|
Aug. |
3415 |
1119 |
33 |
177 |
51 |
28 |
|
Sep. |
3448 |
1114 |
32 |
37 |
12 |
32 |
|
Oct. |
3837 |
1186 |
31 |
136 |
81 |
59 |
|
Nov. |
4126 |
1247 |
30 |
59 |
19 |
32 |
|
Dec. |
4126 |
1254 |
30 |
58 |
15 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
1681
|
524
|
31
|
|
a = total
number of employees |
|
|
|
|
b = total
number of veterans |
|
|
|
|
c =
percentage employed that are veterans |
|
|
d = number
of employees discharged |
|
|
|
e = number
of veterans discharged |
|
|
|
f =
percentage of force discharged that are veterans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
Letter, Commandant, NY Navy Yard, to ASN (NYD), 14 January 1932; RG181;
NA-NY. |
The general
upturn in shipbuilding that
began in the
mid-1930s was a boon to veterans and helped temper the competition for
jobs between them and those who had not served in the military and they
were no longer regarded as an interest needing particular
attention. Veterans with a service-connected disability
substantiated by
certificate from the Veterans Administration within the previous six
months still retained their special position. They could file a
job application at any time for any trade or
calling in which they were qualified if a register for that job
existed, or
even if it had already closed, and be placed above
all other non-disabled
applicants on the lists. [“Addition of Ten Points as Veteran
Preference to the earned Mark of a Disabled Veteran,” Memorandum for
file, by James H. West, 24 July 1936; RG181;
NA-NY. Also, see USCSC, History of Veteran
Preference.]
Part of the reason for veteran employment
no longer being an issue was the sheer increase not only in
warshipbuilding but also in the size of the Rooseveltian executive
workforce in general. At the beginning of Roosevelt's presidency
the civil service stood at 565,000 employees. By 1937 the force
grew to 840,000 and three years later it topped 1,000,000.
[USCSC, Annual Reports.]
For the civil service as a whole its growth in the president's second
term outran the number of veterans available:
B. Veterans hired as total of all hired
through Civil
Service Commission |
|
|
Appt'd |
Appt'd |
Vets as % |
|
Total |
5 points |
10 points |
of total hired |
FY 34 |
4929 |
3755 |
1174 |
24.7 |
FY 35 |
8401 |
6224 |
2177 |
26.4 |
FY 36 |
10,660 |
7546 |
3114 |
25.3 |
FY 37 |
8716 |
6444 |
2272 |
19.6 |
Source:
USCSC, Annual
Reports,
for the above years. Note:
Fiscal
year ran from 1 July to 30 June. |
|
There remained a closer relation between
veterans and the Navy Department than in the government at large, the
percentage hired holding steady at a bit below one-third. But
even so, veterans found greater opportunity in the government as a
whole as the percentage hired by the Navy fell from 58 per cent of
veterans hired in 1934 to 26 per cent hired in 1937.
C. Percentage of Civilian Navy Positions Filled by
Veterans |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
Total |
|
% Total |
% Vets of Total Hired |
|
FY 34 |
VC |
4936 |
|
VA |
2848 |
|
58.9 |
|
|
|
Non-VC |
12,243 |
|
Non-VA |
6619 |
|
54.1 |
|
|
|
TC |
17,179 |
|
TA |
9467 |
|
55.1 |
30.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FY 36 |
VC |
7116 |
|
VA |
3817 |
|
53.6 |
|
|
|
Non-VC |
19,349 |
|
Non-VA |
9636 |
|
49.8 |
|
|
|
TC |
26,349 |
|
TA |
13,363 |
|
50.7 |
28.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FY 37 |
VC |
4615 |
|
VA |
2231 |
|
48.3 |
|
|
|
Non-VC |
14,248 |
|
Non-VA |
4917 |
|
34.5 |
|
|
|
TC |
18,863 |
|
TA |
7448 |
|
38.4 |
30.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VC/VA
= Veterans Certified/Appointed |
|
|
|
|
|
TC/TA
= Total Certified/Appointed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
USCSC, Annual Reports, for
above years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Brooklyn Navy Yard veterans
constituted 25.8 percent of the workforce at the end of 1937 and 23.1
percent at the end of December 1941. [Calculated from figures in “Monthly Report of
Civil Personnel
Statistics,” 1937-1941; RG181; NA-NY.]
The Beginning of a
Vast New Pool of Veteran Government Workers
The
federal hiring situation became especially
complicated
when Congress passed the Selective Training and Service Act on 16
September 1940, instituting America's first peacetime draft. The
law required all men between 21 and 35 to register and for 1.2 million
of them to be drafted for one year of service. Not only did its
passage serve to reduce the pool of labor from which shipyards drew
upon, it also made inevitable the creation of a potentially enormous
new group of veterans and the resultant problem of their re-entrance
into a postwar U.S. economy. As the Brooklyn Eagle pointed out,
the failure to provide for employment for the veterans of the Great War
helped worsen the great unemployment rate after that conflict.
The new law sought to help
correct for the errors of the previous post-war period by guaranteeing
that
government workers who were drafted or who volunteered under the terms
set out in the law would be restored to their old job or one of “like
seniority, status, and pay.” In addition, on the first year back
on the job the restored person could be discharged only for
cause. So as not to dump a large number of veterans on the
economy at once, the services would release its soldiers and sailors in
stages. Beginning in September 1941, the War Department
had each local draft board establish a re-employment
committeeman to oversee this new policy. The corresponding issue of
draft exemptions later proved
to be an extremely important and delicate one, especially once America
entered the war, but for the time being, government service did not
exempt one from being drafted. The law granted deferment only to
those “whose employment in industry, agriculture or other occupations
or employment . . . is found . . . to be necessary to the maintenance
of the national health, safety, or interest,” this decision to be made
by the local draft board. Once begun, the draft obtained a
momentum of its own and in October 1941, Congress extended it for
another eighteen months.
[An Act “To provide for the common defense
by increasing the personnel
of the armed forces of the the United States and providing for its
training,” 16 September 1940, Public, no. 783; “Employees subject
to registration under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 -
time off for Registration,” Commandant's Instructions No 47-40, to
HDDO, 11 October 1940; “General Information regarding Military
Service,” Circular Letter, from ASN (Piozet, Director of Personnel), to
AN&MCAC, 22 July 1941; encloses copy of Civil Service Circular
#255, of 16 April 1941, outlining these regulations; RG181; NA-NY; BE,
3 September 1941; Black, Charlestown Navy Yard; Joint Resolution, “To
extend the periods of service of persons in the military service, and
for other purposes,” 18 August 1941, Public Law 213.]
World War II to the
Closing of the BNY
During the second world war over 800 medically discharged veterans
worked in the
Brooklyn Navy Yard, most from New York. They applied either
directly through the Yard's Labor Board or through the Veterans
Administration Division of the Civil Service Commission.
The Yard brought on approximately eight per day, placing them in a
suitable job, or, if
they had no special skill, sending them to a yard trade school.
In an article in the New York Times
a reporter gave several examples of injured servicemen taking up new
jobs. One man
who lost his left leg and hurt his back when his tank hit a mine
at Casablanca became a property clerk in a warehouse, using crutches in
a warehouse and expected to receive an artificial leg in due
time. Another, a marine whose ankle was crushed by mortar fire at
Bougainville was learning to be an electrician. [NYT, 14 August 1944.]
The employment situation in the BNY after the end of World War II soon
became intense. From its war-time peak of about 68,000 workers
the Yard down-sized its force to approximately 10,000 by 1950.
While many workers
left on their own [the Yard was already down to 48,000 by the end of
1945] this figure was achieved mostly through periodic mass layoffs,
such as the one in October 1949 of 2500, which brought the
workforce down to 9650 workers. And during this downsizing the
navy yard had to rehire the veterans who wanted their old jobs
back. Needless to say these reductions in force, RIFs as they
were called, angered those who worked in the Yard during the war.
The Yard, according to some sources ended up removing many of its most
senior
workers. At that final mass layoff,
Yard supporters said employees with over thirty years of experience had
been released, while leaving war veterans untouched. Many of the
released workers had
wanted to serve, but the Yard had deemed them essential "war workers"
and refused them permission to leave. They felt they were being
categorized as being
of less worth than the veterans; one politician had gone so far as to
refer to Yard work as no better than WPA [i.e., relief] work.
Later, in the 1960s, one BNY naval officer claimed that the Yard
had let go up to 15,000 of its best workers in favor of those who
they had allowed to be drafted.
[Navy
Department. Office of Industrial Relation. Personnel Studies
and Statistics Branch, "Civilian Personnel of Naval Shore
Establishments:
A Summary Report, 30 June 1938 - 31 December 1945"; NYT, 29 August 1949, 27
October 1949; Lynda Carlson, "The Closing of the Brooklyn Navy Yard: A
Case Study in Group Politics," Ph.D. diss., U. of Illinois, Champagne,
1974.]
According to one observer, the BNY was largely staffed by these
veterans up to its closing in 1966, and their perceived lack of
initiative lay the Yard open to criticism by the forces pushing for the
privatization of
warship-building in the post-war years. They were one of
the many factors cited by the anti-navy yard forces in their
prolonged and successful and at times scurrilous effort to close down
the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The head
of the lobbying effort for the private shipbuilders, Hanson Baldwin,
even accused veterans as belonging to a group, which
included the civil service workers [basically every civilian working in
the Yard], that held "privileged status," receiving higher pay
and allowances than those who worked in southern, non-union shipyards,
and through
their power in Congress they had
become a "management within management," slowing efficient production
and in general ratcheting up costs. [Carlson,
"Closing the BNY"; NYT, 21 November
1964.]
The Brooklyn
Navy Yard
in the Inter-War Era
Top
John R Stobo ©
February 2006