I want to help you but I want to say I can't really justify in my opinion an arbitrary cutoff. A person may be an excellent worker, a stewardess. I fly American a great deal, and some of the young ladies that you spoke of who came in prior to 1953, are excellent stewardesses. I could care no less as a steady passenger of American Airlines whether a girl is 25, 28, 30, 32, or 45. They give us excellent service and wonderful service on American Airlines and we are very pleased with it. As I say I want to help you ladies. Mr. DENT. I have been leafing through the ATA testimony and they ask a rather important question in line with exactly what you are talking about. I would like to call attention to it at this point in the record. They say it should be drafted, to accomplish the Government's objectives of employment of older workers, without involving the Government in guaranteeing the job preference of employees unwilling to accept proper retraining and reassignment to other jobs with comparable pay. To state the national interest of older workers requires legislation and they are asking that it be a nationwide policy so they don't have the problem of crossing State lines. But it is a very deliberate and important part of their testimony that this committee will have to study and carefully examine their question as to just how far it can go in determining job preferences of employees or the question of what is considered an older worker. Job preference for a worker 55 years of age working in the iron industry or the steel industry might be a different question altogether than that of a person 32 years or older in work that is not considered heavy duties. With regard to the airlines, we have a question to consider as to whether there are offerings of retraining for other jobs. Do they establish for the girl who becomes 32 a set plan where that girl is offered a job of some other duties in the industry with comparable pay? Is there a selection allowed to the employees being severed from the job or are they automatically severed from the job at age 32? These are questions to which we would like the answer. Miss BOLAND. I would say in the case of American Airlines this is slightly different than the average because this is one that has been a subject of negotiations and did result in having alternatives for the girl. We have another alternative; we can force a shutdown to come about December of this year to correct the problem ourselves but there is not just American Airlines. I would like to point out we have said of those we represent American is the only one maintaining this age policy. They are not the only airlines. Mr. PUCINSKI. You said foreign airlines don't have this? Miss BOLAND. Other airlines in this country have an age policy or ruling that do not offer alternatives but they are not represented by us. I think we may have confused the record in the fact that American is the only one we represent that still maintains an age policy. This has been modified with some alternatives or Barbara would not have been here a year ago. Our concern, as I believe your bill and what you have under consideration, is that there should not be discrimination based solely on age. Why should I be required to terminate a job I am capable of and that I like, that I have the ability to perform, solely because the calendar says I am now 45, should anyone else be forced to give up a job that they desire and can qualify for? What, in line with ATA's position, I would assume then that as long as Congress could pass a law requiring offering babysitting to every woman over 60, this means there are jobs for everyone. Mr. PUCINSKI. I think you have made an excellent statement and an excellent contribution in clearing up one thing, that is the totally illogic and completely indefensible position of having this legislation crank in at age 45 and crank out age 65. I think you have made a valid point here in that this legislation ought to apply across the board. If you are going to have a bar to discrimination because of age that bar should apply as much to a 30-year-old worker, as to a 45-year-old worker. You made that point clearly. If that is all you are asking for before the committee I don't think you will have any problems. The question I raise is the next plateau; that is, the question that confronts American Airlines. They tell you you can be a stewardess up to the age of 32, but then they try to get you some other job with the company. If this is agreeable to the young ladies, if they are happy to make that switch over, or they feel they can work that out with the companies through normal collective-bargaining processes, then we have no problem. But if they are asking Congress to legislate this field, then I would say, please give us some suggested language. Miss BOLAND. I would say, and I think Frank will agree, if Congress passed a law prohibiting discrimination of age, any age, then our side problems we can take care of. Mr. PUCINSKI. I think we have had a helpful and productive session this morning. It clarifies your position and I think gives the committee something firm to work with. Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Pucinski. I have no further questions. Mr. PUCINSKI. I just wanted the record to show, Mr. Chairman, that one of my best secretaries is a former stewardess and the young lady learned a great deal as a stewardess, went to school and learned stenography, shorthand, and typing, and today runs my Chicago office. She is one of the finest secretaries in the city. Mr. DENT. I just want to put into the record excerpts which I will give to the reporter later, in a letter from a former Member of Congress who was defeated at the last election. The problem is one related to the subject matter before this committee. Inasmuch as he has 14 years in Congress having come to Congress at age 38 and is now 52 and was severed from his job involuntarily, it brings up a serious problem of where does he go from there since the doors are closed to practically all persons. Insofar as his law profession is concerned, he lost contact with all his clients; he lost touch with the practical knowledge of law. He is very much in favor of this legislation because it crosses all lines of endeavor and is not restricted to those who work in manual jobs. It reaches over to the executive-type, professional-type and the trained worker, inasmuch as their problem becomes even more acute since they although they have the experience and the training that makes them important to industry. This is a very important letter that shows to what extent this problem has become a major issue in the country today. Mr. PUCINSKI. I am delighted to see this legislation moving. I have been working for a bar to age discrimination for 9 years. One of the first bills I introduced as a freshman Congressman dealt with age discrimination and I got nothing but a cold shoulder from the Labor Department. Everyone said how impossible it was to think of such legislation. I would like to say I have received a great deal of personal satisfaction from the fact this legislation is moving. I remember as late as a couple of years ago, when we tried to get this legislation through, we ran into all kinds of obstacles from industry, the administration and other sources. There is no question this is one of the most pressing problems in America today. As the young lady before us pointed out, nothing is more cruel than to say that an American citizen, male or female, should be denied the opportunity to earn a livelihood simply because he or she has reached a chronological age of 33 or 35, 40, 45 or 47. Many of these people at the age of 45 and 47 still have young families. It is a real tragedy in America. A man at age 45 or 47 with two or three or four children, aged 4, 5, 6, 8, through there, and here is a man told he is too old to work, I can't think of any greater contribution this Congress can make than to pass this legislation as quickly as possible. I want to congratulate you Miss Boland. How many stewardesses are there in America? Miss BOLAND. Better than 15,000, I would say. Mr. PUCINSKI. I often wondered how the airlines recruit these young ladies because I have yet to meet a bad stewardess. They are tremendously capable young women and I don't know of any other industry with such high standards as the airlines. Some day, I will call and ask how they do it, I would like to learn a lesson from them. Mr. O'CONNELL. On that question you asked Miss Boland, would you ask it again? Mr. PUCINSKI. How many stewardesses are there in America? Mr. PUCINSKI. It has been a pleasure to have you young ladies here and you have made a point in your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. BURKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. BURKE. I am happy to be here. I wish to endorse the statements made by the previous speakers as far as these airline stewardesses are concerned. This is a subject matter with which I have had a great deal of interest over the years. In addition to the problems of the airline stewardesses, which they face along with other people, the economy is faced with a real problem, these are the people between 45 and 65 years of age who happen. to lose their jobs. These people find it very difficult to even secure an interview for a job because of the bare years and the lines that have beeen set up barring them from employment because of the thinking of employers who apparently feel that a person out of work over 45 years of age doesn't deserve much consideration. Today, throughout this Nation we have many, many well-qualified persons, able-bodied, intelligent, experienced people who could fill almost any job within the realm of employment and they just can't get an interview. This is a serious problem. Of course, today we have higher employment in the country and our unemployment figures are a little low right now, but over the long haul these people between the ages of 45 and 65 find it most difficult and practically imposible to secure a position. I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in behalf of this legislation that I have sponsored for many years in the U.S. Congress to prevent age discrimination in employment opportunities. It pleases me to see that the administration has finally taken action on this measure. The middle-aged worker in the United States is chronologically sandwiched between the beginner and the retiree. And, although we rarely realize it, he is feeling the pressure of both groups in his effort to maintain his place in the labor force. The young are crowding in from behind, and the trend toward rigid retirement standards is mandatorily limiting his work span-this in spite of the fact that he can look forward to longer and healthier later years than his grandfather or his father. The problem usually does not arise unless the older worker-generally considered to be age 40 and up-suddenly finds himself without a job. It is one of the cruel paradoxes of our time that older workers holding jobs are considered invaluable because of their experience and stability. But, let that same worker become unemployed, and he is considered "too old" to be hired. Yet, once employed, the older worker can look forward to longer stretches between jobs. This problem is already severe and it is growing more so. The older worker who becomes unemployed, even though he many have a spotless and distinguished record of achievement and competence, is assailed by all kinds of slings and arrows of bad fortune. For one, longrun occupational shifts work against the older worker. The jobs which are growing in importance today are concentrated more in white collar and highly technical occupations; they impose requirements that the older worker is less likely to possess than a younger competitor. This is especially true when the worker has become unemployed because of his job even perhaps the first and only job he ever held-has become obsolete. Another reason is the effect of the growth of private pension plans. This device to protect the worker against need and worry in old age has, paradoxically enough, brought on wider use of age restrictions. Because it is often not possible to earn enough credits for a pension and because often there is resentment against older entrant into these plans to earn enough credits for a pension, and because often there is resentment against an older entrant for reaping the benefits that have been created by years of contributions by longtime employees, many employers refuse to hire such workers. Furthermore, pensions have encouraged the practices of automatic retirement at a fixed age, usually 65. I might point out these young ladies are forced to retire at a very forced to retire at an unusually young age. Most people are forced to retire at age 65, but airline stewardesses don't even enjoy that privilege. These, at least, are practical problems. But there is one problem confronting the older worker that is even more painful, more widespread than either of those previously mentioned. That is discrimination. Age discrimination is not the same as the insidious discrimination based on race or creed prejudices and bigotry. Racial or religious discrimination results in nonemployment because of feelings about a person entirely unrelated to his ability to do a job. This is hardly a problem for the older job seeker. Discrimination arises for him because of assumptions that are made about the effects of age on performance. One would not hire a 45-yearold woman to model teenage clothes. One probably would not hire an older man to work on placing girders in rising skyscrapers. But, as a general rule, ability is ageless. A young man with capacities does not lose them with age, unless his capacities are dependent upon his physical characteristics or the speed of his reactions. In many instances, rather, a worker's skills are honed and sharpened by experience. Studies have shown in fact, that older workers bring qualities to a job that tend to make them very desirable employees indeed. For one, they rate high in dependability-they have a much lower rate of absenteeism than their young coworkers. They also have a high rate of job stability-they are less likely to move around from office to office, from place to place. And their rate of work injuries is lower than that of younger groups. These qualities, which are prized by any employer, are the fruits of experience experience gained through years in the labor force. The Federal Government sets a good example by its policy banning age discrimination. It backs up its stated policy to protect the older worker against unfair elimination from job searches through efforts of the U.S. Employment Service. This agency was one of the first, public or private, to recognize the special position of the unemployed worker, and it actively seeks to place older workers by supporting and counseling the workers in their search for employment and by trying to encourage prospective employers to look more kindly on the older job applicant. These are still small, if essential efforts. This country needs to have its private industries and businesses follow the Federal example in their attitudes toward the older worker. The advantages are manifold. Not only would business and industry gain skills, wisdom, and experience accumulated during long working years, but they would be doing the workers themselves a service by showing that they have not outlived their productivity when they are merely on the threshold of middle age. It is an old saying that "life begins at 40." It can be just as true that new work can begin at 40 as well. I would like to conclude by pointing out to the committee that this problem with the aging worker, you take some of these people between the ages of 50 and 60, as soon as they give their age the door is shut to them and they cannot get an interview. If they could just go in and ta' to the personnel man and just discuss their experience and what t could do for that firm, there might be some opportunity for them. I |