political rights regardless of race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry; the principle is valid for our democracy as applied to a man's right to equality in employment.

Federal law alone can fix fair standards for the Nation. Federal law alone will serve notice to the world that our democracy means in fact what we profess in principle.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Now I wish to announce that the record will be kept open until February 1 for the acceptance of other material and statements from any other individuals or organizations who are interested in submitting such statements.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS ON OLDER WORKER PROBLEMS STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REGARDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF AGE

We are happy to have this opportunity to review with your committee some of the problems and facts relating to age discrimination in employment.

We in the Department of Labor know that senior citizens have been and are now making important contributions to the economic and cultural growth of this Nation. Nearly 40 percent of the American labor force is age 45 and over. Workers in this age category are well represented in all of the major fields of activity in our economy-in the sciences, professions, arts, as craftsmen, production and service workers, and in the sales and clerical fields.

An examination of the performance of these workers, through a number of factual studies, reveals their productivity, job attendance, safety record, reliability and job interest to be at least on a par with and in some respects superior to workers in the younger age brackets.

Despite this demonstrated record of achievement and contribution, the senior citizen in search of a job often finds himself turned down arbitrarily because of his age. It is understandable that a jobseeker may not have the required experience, skill, training, or physical capacity to perform the duties of a given job. But when any consideration of these factors are pushed aside and an arbitrary time boundary, often set at 45 or 40, becomes the test of a worker's ability, then this deprives citizens of the opportunity for economic independence and dignity and becomes a drag on the economy as a whole.

That this situation occurs frequently is evident in the many letters we receive monthly from workers all over the Nation.

More precise evidence of the extent and nature of age discrimination in employment is contained in a number of formal studies conducted by this Department. State employment security agencies, leading universities, and employer associations. Many of these studies and their implications have been highlighted by such congressional committees as the Senate Special Committee on Aging and at the historic White House Conference on Aging in 1961.

The following is a capsule summary of the most significant studies and surveys: In a 1956 Department of Labor study, 58 percent of all job openings studied in five cities had restrictive age requirements. In 1961, the study was repeated in the same cities and showed a composite of 39 percent with age restrictions. While this represents a significant drop during the 5-year period, the fact remains that in these cities, two out of every five job openings continue to have some age restriction attached to them.

In 1960, at least 10 State employment security agencies gathered data on age restrictions in connection with their participation in the 1961 White House Conference on Aging. These studies showed a variable picture from State to State, ranging from a low of 26 percent of job openings with age restrictions to a high of 64 percent.

Earlier, in 1958 and 1959, a large national management association in the clerical field undertook identical surveys in several States including, New York, Texas, and California. These studies, relating to the hiring of older workers for office jobs, showed that in each area, as least 40 percent of the surveyed firms had age limits of 50 or lower. In several areas, the percentage was much higher. The University of California, in 1959, surveyed a sampling of firms in the San Francisco area. The great majority reported that they had upper age limits in hiring either through formal policies or through less formal practices.

An earlier study by the same group had found that more than three-fifths of the companies surveyed had set up age limits in hiring.

Additional evidences are found in the employment and unemployment statistics compiled by this Department. In December 1961, among the long-term unemployed-those unemployed for 27 weeks or longer-men aged 45 and over constituted a significantly larger proportion of this group than they are represented in the labor force as a whole-35 percent versus 26 percent.

Likewise, among the beneficiaries of temporary extended unemployment compensation, a group sharing the common problem of long-term unemployment, workers age 45 and over represented 45 percent of the total in October 1961. The evidence thus points strongly to the existence of common practices in hiring which discriminate arbitrarily against the over-40 worker. The net effect is individual and family hardship and a reduction of our available manpower resources.

Unfortunately, the problem appears to be growing more acute as we move through this decade of change.

For many in their forties and fifties work careers are being interrupted by the economic cycle, automation, plant movements, and mergers. Long-term unemployment thus created, in addition to its immediate economic impact, continues to plague the individual right up to and including retirement by reducing his work credits and pension income. Coupled with this is the steady erosion of skill and spirit, losses which are not measurable in economic terms alone. Certainly, attempts are being made to develop new and upgrade old skills through training programs for workers in redevelopment areas under the Area Redevelopment Act and one out of seven trainees at this early stage of the overall program is age 45 and over. Selection to approved ARA training programs are being made by the State employment service without regard to age.

But to what avail will this be if, even with a newly acquired skill, such individuals are arbitrarily barred and never given an opportunity to prove themselves. The proposed manpower development and training bill is intended to establish needed training on a much broader scale. This effort will be seriously diluted if the over-40 trainee is unacceptable after completing training merely because of his age.

Some concrete measures have been taken to deal with this problem.

The Department of Labor has conducted extensive educational campaigns to discourage employment discrimination because of age and to encourage enlightened hiring practices based on ability and capability.

It has established specialized services to aid in job placement of older workers through public employment offices in every State.

It has carried on research and encouraged and worked with others on a variety of studies to secure and to disseminate objective information on the job performance of over-40 workers.

It has worked with unions, gerontological groups, employers, civic organizations, associations of older people, and other Federal and State agencies to develop new and improved educational and service programs.

Further, certain administrative actions have been taken within the Department of Labor which have a bearing on its services to older workers. In April 1961, the Secretary of Labor established within the Department an Office of Automation and Manpower and an outside Advisory Committee of experts from management, labor, and the public. The Office is not only engaged in studying the impact of automation on the labor force, it is also attempting to anticipate where and when technological change will occur so that steps can be taken to minimize unemployment. Steps have been taken to make services available to management and labor which would result in employee transfers from jobs being eliminated to newly created jobs. In this way some unemployment may be avoided with many in the upper age brackets being likely to benefit from these preventive measures.

In addition to existing Federal legislation directly related to employment of the older worker, at least 15 States have passed age antidiscrimination laws. Although the effect of State laws in reducing discrimination has been difficult to measure, some tentative observations can be made at this time.

Based on the available data, relatively few complaints have been filed by workers. The great majority of complaints have been settled by discussion with the parties involved.

It appears that there has been general improvement in the climate of acceptance of older workers for job vacancies. Mention of age in newspaper advertising

has been virtually eliminated. At the same time, specific opportunities for interviews and presentation of qualifications by the older worker have improved with consequent increased chances for employment.

Such laws also serve as an expression of public policy with the risk of adverse public relations to violators.

Those involved in the administration of these laws are in general agreement that such laws need to be reinforced with a broad educational and promotional program directed at employers and the general public. We fully support this view.

In summary, it appears that one of the major problems with which this Nation must cope in developing its manpower resources is the problem of discrimination in employment. Age discrimination is but one facet, although an important one.

This administration strongly believes that our Nation cannot tolerate the reckless waste of manpower which results from such discrimination. Although significant progress has been made during the past 5 years in breaking down age barriers to employment, it is clear from the facts presented in this statement, and those available to this Department and your committee, that the problem still exists.

You may be assured that this administration will continue to take every possible measure to further expand the employment opportunities of our middleaged and older workers.

Mr. JAMES ROOSEVELT,

STATE OF OREGON, BUREAU OF LABOR,

February 8, 1962.

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: This is a response to your letter of February 1 in which you asked Mr. Mark Smith of our civil rights division to furnish data pertinent to Oregon's age discrimination laws. Inasmuch as Mr. Smith does not administer the Oregon age discrimination laws he has referred your letter to this division for reply. I shall endeavor to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Oregon laws provide for complete separation of the agencies that administer laws relating to the traditional civil rights problems (intergroup relations involving race, national origin, and religion) from the administration of laws prohibiting age discrimination in employment. Therefore, the Oregon Bureau of Labor has separate divisions for the administration of these laws, namely: the civil rights division which employs sociologists who are specialists in intergroup relations; and the senior worker division which employs social scientists who are specialists in the field of gerontology, psychology, labor economics, finance, and human relations. The problems connected with eliminating and preventing discrimination in employment because of age involve complex questions on insurance and pensions, labor contracts, personnel management principles, counseling procedures and individual differences, and the determination of the "right age," when it begins and when it ends.

The States which have added "age" to their antidiscrimination laws have found that they have had to hire a separate staff for the specialized duties in treating the problems of older workers. Therefore, it is urged that adequate provision be made for such need in any Federal laws enacted to prohibit age discrimination in employment.

Probably the basic difference is that age discrimination arises out of economic ignorance while the traditional areas of civil rights discrimination seems to result from bigotry.

Now after a lengthy introduction, I shall endeavor to answer your questions. (1) Are age discrimination laws more difficult to enforce than are the traditional civil rights laws?

Answer. A thorough discussion with Mr. Mark Smith of the civil rights division on matters involving enforcement leads me to say that the enforcement of both laws are equally difficult. Enforcement provisions are an absolute necessity in either type of discrimination. We apply the following principle to our administration of these laws, namely: "If the employer can be educated on the economic values of individually considering each applicant who approaches him for a job; and, if a 'good' man and a 'qualified' man can gain an interview, the

employer will hire him." The enforcement provisions in our laws are in reality the "key" to the "employer's" door for both the individual and this educating agency; without the enforcement provisions little could be accomplished.

(2) Can you, further, point to instances of conspicuous success in widening the opportunities of older people?

Answer. Definitely. Please, may I now refer you to the enclosed copies of our July 1, 1961, report "Senior Worker Problems as They Relate to Oregon." Part III of that report indicates positive results realized thus far in Oregon.

Subsequent to the publication of the above-mentioned report, we have received more than 60 additional complaints relating to age discrimination-all have been thoroughly investigated and resolved, with about the same results as stated on page 11 of the report.

It is strongly recommended that any laws passed at national level relating to age discrimination specifically prohibit all offices of the U.S. Public Employment Service from "screening out" employment applicants solely because of age. In this regard, I invite your attention to part IV of the enclosed report, and the enclosed verifax copy of a letter received in our office this date, from an older worker-we often hear the same story from most older workers with whom we have contact. I should comment at this time that the Oregon State Employment Service is a separate State agency and is not a part of the Oregon Bureau of Labor.

I have also enclosed some verifax copies of the résumés prepared by individuals who have been turned away by employers because of their age-it is interesting to note that the youngest (age 28) is a graduate of Stanford University with an MBA degree, he was told that he was too old to enter a manager trainee program in the field of finance-we have had others at age 28. All of these individuals are personable, articulate, neat and well dressed, and a check of their references revealed that their character and performance was above average— they were unemployed due to mergers, business failures, reorganizations, and layoff due to lack of business.

We feel that we have made some progress in eliminating age discrimination from employment in Oregon, but the problem extends beyond the boundaries of .our State-it is a national problem of grave economic nature.

Sincerely,

Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT,

RAY A. ZIEGLER, Director, Senior Worker Division.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., November 9, 1961.

Member of Congress, Los Angeles, Calif.

DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: A recent article in the Los Angeles Times was gratifying to read-it concerned the meetings you held recently in the Federal Building with a committee investigating discrimination in employment.

I am a white person. Therefore, the discrimination about which I am most concerned is that against age. Many of us are hoping that the Congress will take action which will force employers into using fairer methods when hiring than now exist.

From June 16, 1960, until a few days ago (to October 31, 1961) I held a responsible position as executive secretary in the new and expanding electronics field at a salary of $500 per month. Then, on October 17, I was informed that "we've had several meetings and we desire some changes in personnel, so it will probably be to your best interests to look for other work." I was never given a reason for the termination. All my friends and the outside contacts I had made are puzzled and shocked at my termination. Suffice it to say that the new wife of the plant manager (she is 34) now is there.

Having reached that unmentionable and unforgiveable old and decrepit age of 49, I suspect that my age finally came to light. It is a young and growing company, and they have a policy of trying not to hire beyond the age of 30. There was no complaint as to my work; they just felt "it was for my own good to look for work with an older, established firm, with older men, less pressure, where it would be quieter," etc., etc. I joined this company after several other (and in fairness to me-younger) girls had not filled the bill in a short period of time. They needed me the worst way those first few months, and did not then question my age. During my employment with this company, I worked 2521⁄2 hours of overtime, for which I did not receive any extra pay, but only compensa