Life After 65

Reprieve on forced retirement

The U.S. last week took the bold (some say foolhardy) step of embarking on a major social experiment with little solid information on what its impact will be. President Carter signed a bill, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress, that will outlaw the widespread practice of requiring workers to retire at the age of 65. Most workers will not be forced to retire solely because of age until they reach 70. Consequences of the change are so uncertain that the law itself calls for a study to assess its own effect.

The new law reflects the growing influence of the elderly. It was conceived by 77-year-old Claude Pepper, a Florida Democratic Congressman. The act will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 1979, for all workers employed by private business firms that have more than 19 employees. This means that some 70% of the national labor force will be covered. In addition, the law eliminates altogether mandatory retirement based on age for most employees of the Federal Government, a majority of whom can be forced to retire at 70 under present civil service law. Except for policemen and firemen, nearly all state and local government workers will fall under the age-70 provision.

The major exceptions to the law involve college professors who have tenure, corporation executives whose pension is $27,000 a year or more, and workers covered by labor contracts that provide for earlier forced retirement. The latter will be covered, however, after Jan. 1,1980.

Pepper contends that "this portends no cataclysm of the economy." The Labor Department agrees, estimating that, over the next five years, the number of workers who will choose to work beyond age 65 will be only about 200,000--7% of the workers of that age and a mere two-tenths of 1% of the entire labor force. But while the statistical impact may prove minimal, the psychological shifts may be considerable. On the one hand, the stultifying effect on younger workers who see their careers stalled indefinitely by senior workers clinging to their jobs could hinder creativity in industry. On the other, the lifting of unwanted retirement from the horizons of experienced workers could prove both personally refreshing for those workers and a continuing source of valued labor talent for their employers.

One effect is clear: the new law will put extra pressure on bosses to decide just which aging employees they wish to keep on and which they want to remove as potential dead wood. Instead of letting retirement at 65 decide such matters, they will have to make some painful personnel choices much earlier.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.