provisions. Whether generated by the employer or labor unions, discrimination The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom realizes that this is just a beginning. But if our Government can prevent discrimination in this basic right, other abuses, such as housing, will also diminish. We, therefore, commend the chairman and members of the Special Subcommittee on Labor of the House of Representatives for their efforts for this beginning. We hope the Members of Congress will be wise enough to give them support by voting for a bill embodying these provisions. STATEMENT OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Congress has an obligation to insure that all citizens should have equal rights in employment in interstate commerce. This principle should apply to employers and associations of workers alike so that the protection of Federal law may be extended to the right to work on the basis of ability of individuals regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. The principle has been tested by the wartime Federal agency (FEPC) and by the experience of at least 20 States, including the largest industrial States. The operation of the State statutes has won over to the side of fair employment practice some of its most vigorous opponents. Fears of coercive measures against employers have been shown to be unfounded. Such measures have not been necessary to secure compliance. General recognition of the justice of fair practice is in the spirit of the times. Even the fears of coercion in the South are unfounded in the light of methods used both by the Federal Government in wartime and by the States. The chief objection to such a bill is apparently that an employer's relationship with his employees is a private matter not subject to regulation by the State in hiring or promotion. But Congress has already legislated in regard to private employment in many ways. It has regulated collective bargaining and the closed shop. It has assumed under the interstate commerce clause wide powers over employing policies. The proposed bill would not compel any employer to hire any particular person. It would ban only the practice of discrimination based on religion, color, national origin, ancestry, by employers and labor unions alike. The charge that the bill is an interference with States' rights is answered first, by the fact that the Supreme Court can be trusted to protect these States' rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and secondly by the fact that States' righs are protected by the bill's omission of employers not engaged in interstate commerce or in operations not affecting interstate commerce. Thus, if a State desires to deal with discrimination, it may. The charge that the compulsory features of the bill is unfair is without merit. The Commission must investigate charges of discrimination, and if it finds probable cause it must then follow the methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that in the States in which FEPC has already been in operation for a substantial length of time, there has been few instances-less than two dozen out of several thousand-in which these informal methods have failed to remedy the complaint. Compulsion is necessary behind any law. If informal methods do not work, what form would compulsion take? A full hearing must be held before the Commission, in which the employer has the fullest opportunity. If the Commission deems the employer guilty of discrimination, it issues a cease and desist order, which may be enforced only upon petition to the courts, and the courts under certain conditions may order that additional evidence be taken. After such full and fair procedure, an employer's freedom to hire, but not to discriminate, could not be in the least impaired. If it is argued that it is difficult to determine discrimination, the answer is that all courts and administrative agencies must and do determine more difficult factual questions. The very difficulty of proving discrimination would insure that no one will be unjustly held guilty by the Commission or by the courts. The interest of the ACLU as a national agency of 41 years' record in supporting for everybody the principles of the Bill of Rights, also lies in the extension of those rights to industry. It is not enough to urge equality before the law in 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. 1051 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 ea 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. 1 0 0 T Mr. JAMES ROOSEVELT, STATE OF OREGON, BUREAU OF LABOR, February 8, 1962. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 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 |