pany, and in which I will receive no benefit as the inventor. I am sure that you will understand my interest in legislation which will protect the interests of the inventor in his patents; particularly when faced with involuntary termination of employment.

My layoff was not unexpected. For the previous year, I had seen colleagues depart as they finished their work when Government contracts were completed or canceled. During this year I spent my time writing proposals for projects that were not funded. The company was cutting overhead, which made the older engineer with seniority as vulnerable, if not more so, as his younger colleague, since the older man was more expensive, both in salary and the cost of fringe benefits. What few projects were being funded were being staffed by younger men in order to hold costs down, as well as possibly reflecting the prejudices of the program manager, who was responsible for selecting his project team.

Although expected, the impact of the situation after termination was traumatic. I realized for the first time the great dependence that I had placed over the years on fringe benefits; health and hospital insurance, group life insurance, and the pension plan. These were terminated along with my employment. The costs of converting the health and life insurance to individual policies were so high as to be prohibitive.

With over 10 years of employment, I had vested rights in my pension including company contributions. However, the amount that I will now receive compared with what I would have been entitled to if I had been permitted to work until retirement age is less than half.

Senator KENNEDY. Just a matter of interest-since I'm also chairman of the Health Subcommittee-how long did your health benefits last after you were terminated? Do you remember?

Mr. FRASER. They were actually terminated, although I had conversion rights for 31 days to pick them up. If something had happened during the 31 days I could have paid the quarterly premium for an individual policy and I would have been covered for the next 3

months.

Senator KENNEDY. So, you would have been covered if you had paid the premium?

Mr. FRASER. I would say I was covered for 31 days, during which time I had conversion rights.

Senator KENNEDY. Thirty-one days after that time, and then it terminated?

Mr. FRASER. That's right, although I could purchase an individual policy.

Senator KENNEDY. What kind of a policy was it? Do you know?

Mr. FRASER. The group insurance, while employed, was a very good policy. It covered not only medical, major medical up to $20,000, but also the cost of prescriptions on an 80-percent basis after a $100 deductible. As a matter of fact it's one of the better policies I have seen. The policy that was offered on an individual basis after termination was expensive and covered only $300 for maximum hospital services, $300 surgical indemnity, and $30 room and board up to 70 days. The last time my wife was in the hospital, I think we paid $70 per day for room and board with the group policy covering most of it.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you remember the name of the company?

Mr. FRASER. No, I don't.

Senator KENNEDY. You can give it to us later on; but in any event, it's terminated after 30 days unless you were able to convert it? (The information referred to and subsequently supplied follows:) The company is the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Mr. FRASER. That's right, and the cost of continuing on an individual basis was so high and the coverage so poor that what I actually did was to obtain a policy through a professional society; the IEEE has a major medical plan using a $500 deductible I was able to obtain at the lowest possible cost sufficient for protection.

One of the other things

Senator KENNEDY. This is the usual pattern as I understand it. Whether it's a blue collar worker or a white collar technical worker, this is the same kind of experience in terms of health. We have had some tragic testimony about people who have lost their employment and then been thrown into bankruptcy because of their wives having babies. They've lost their cars, television sets, any kind of charge or credit capability, and have been hard pressed to pay their children's food bills. This kind of illustration applies equally to highly skilled and highly trained individuals.

I was just interested in that phase of it at this particular time. If you would continue.

Mr. FRASER. In the 16 months of unemployment, I have used up my severance pay, unemployment benefits, and am now using savings that were to have provided for retirement years.

I am naturally interested in reestablishing a source of income. To that end, I have sent out over 200 résumés, registered with numerous employment agencies, and answered more advertisements than I can remember. The result of all this activity has been one interview, and a cold feeling that, while many companies may be looking for someone with my background and experience, they require that he be 35 years old, no older.

In the Boston area, with an estimated 12,000 technical professional people out of work, there have been organized a number of self-help groups, meeting regularly to seek, individually and collectively, solutions to the nightmarish situation that Government policy has inflicted upon the area.

Senator KENNEDY. This is a very interesting point. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

Mr. FRASER. That's right.

Senator KENNEDY. Your testimony this morning cites discrimination against people who are older in terms of technical employment. Perhaps your group can help develop some material on this. I'd be very interested in bringing it to the Labor Department and asking why a great deal more isn't being done. I would be glad to do that in any event; but it's always helpful in terms of documentation if you can show us where, for example, they placed these ads; or if you can give us documented cases of clear-cut discrimination on the basis of age. I don't want to put the burden on you, but I know you have some colleagues who might be able to help.

Please continue.

Mr. FRASER. During the 16 months that I have been unemployed, I have visited many of these groups. I have been impressed with the fact that the majority of those attending these meetings are, like myself, in the category of the gray-haired engineer. Among my unemployed colleagues who have passed the half-century mark, I know of only one who has found a job and very few who have even been extended the courtesy of an interview. Younger engineers join our groups. However, they seem to find work within a few months, while a majority of the older people have been looking for over a year.

Two professional societies have joined to provide assistance to the unemployed in writing résumés and conducting interviews. One of the points made in these courses is, "Do not reveal your age. You may be able to get an interview." This is subterfuge! Why is it necessary? I think the answer is obvious.

In the courses conducted this past spring in the Boston area, 45 percent of the attendees were over the age of 45, while only 20 percent were under 35. If one were to examine the age grouping of project teams which are working on the few projects still being funded, I believe the ratios would be reversed.

Age discrimination is a serious problem which is not unique to the unemployed technical professional. Arthur Miller, in his play, "Death of a Salesman," written over 20 years ago, tells of Willy Loman, who after 28 years on the road for his company asks for a transfer to a desk job. Instead, he is fired. After fruitless search at age 58 for new work, Willy commits suicide by crashing his car so that his family will have the proceeds of his life insurance.

The writing off of the older generation is a sickness typical of our times. The older individual, whatever his occupation, must be guaranteed the right to his means of livelihood. Incentives must be found to induce the employers to hire and to hold onto their senior people. If incentives do not work, then penalties must be used.

A cruel 19th century economic theory which holds that the cost of living can be controlled by putting people out of work applied in the past 2 years to this modern complex world has caused personal tragedy to many people. It is time to renounce the use of unemployment as an economic control, or let him who espouses it be the first to lose his job. Thank you, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, that's a powerful comment, Mr. Fraser, and very, very clear and dramatic testimony.

Can I ask you, what's the situation in terms of pensions? You paid into a pension fund for a number of years, didn't you?

Mr. FRASER. Yes, sir. I have full vested rights, having worked 10 years. However, the possibility at my age, which is 59, of finding a job where I'll be able to build further on that pension is the chances are very poor.

Senator KENNEDY. This is an area in which the Labor Committee is especially interested, for example, the idea of portable pensions. Mr. FRASER. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. To assure that those who build up pension rights in one company and then shift jobs through changing priorities or economic conditions or even movement themselves in our highly mobile society-that those pension rights are preserved in the new

company or industry. We can see the significance and importance of that particular concept as it relates to you.

Mr. FRASER. If I had been reemployed by my company within 1 year, I could have paid the total amount that I would have paid but after the 1 year, apparently these rights are terminated and, of course, I do not expect to be reemployed by my previous company.

Senator KENNEDY. I don't know where the equity is in that. Through no fault of your own and through forces and factors over which you had absolutely no control, you've lost these established rights for which you've paid steadily over the years.

Mr. FRASER. Well, the solution, of course, is the portable pension, possibly similar to that which teachers have through their organization-the employer contributes to the pension plan into the organization and the teacher can move from job to job and whatever benefits that the employer pays are carried along.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any regrets in having gone into the engineering profession?

Mr. FRASER. I have thought about that many times. My work in the television industry from 1937 to 1958 was worth everything that I put into it. I grew up with the television industry and made real contributions to it. I don't regret the first few years that I moved into the type of work which is funded by the Government, and that was the space program. The television industry, of course, grew through private funds.

The world that I moved into at that time was so different from what I had experienced through my first 21 years in the broadcasting years that I had difficulty adjusting to it. The Government requirements, the delays, the writing of proposals with funding being promised and then being delayed for months at a time so that there is tremendous waste of manpower. Just waiting for awards of contracts, the employer was required to maintain the team ready to start working on a project. These things I found very difficult after my first 20 years in private industry.

Senator KENNEDY. Would you like to see your son go into engineering?

Mr. FRASER. I have advised him not to, or at least, first of all, learn plumbing or welding or some art of that sort he can fall back on. Unfortunately, I have that, too. I have obtained my master TV technician license, so I'm now licensed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to repair television sets.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

The second witness this morning is Mr. Charles Laible from Cherry Hill, N.J. Mr. Laible has played an important role in the space program over the years. Tell us about it, Mr. Laible.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LAIBLE, ENGINEER, CHERRY HILL, N.J.

Mr. LAIBLE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to present a brief description of my personal background and current employment problem.

My name is Charles Laible. I reside in Cherry Hill, N.J. I am representing the members of ASPEP, the Association of Scientists and Professional Engineering Personnel, which is part of the National

Council of Engineers and Scientists Organization representing 125,000 industrial employed engineers. I received my degree in mechanical engineering in 1952. I have been employed in the engineering field since then, giving me a total of 19 years experience in this profession. I received my master's degree in mechanical engineering in 1959 by going to school at night. After 12 years of advancement in my profession, I received my first shock in October 1964, when I was put on the layoff list of RCA after being with the company 7 years. Even though the business picture at RCA had looked bad for almost a year and other engineers had been laid off, it still came as a shock when it happened to me. I immediately found employment with General Electric in Philadelphia and left RCA. I was able to get the job at GE through contacts I made with former colleagues who thought enough of my engineering ability to personally recommend me for the position. I was happy about the change to General Electric because the job was interesting and challenging, plus I did not have to relocate. Relocation would have presented a problem then because I had five children with three in school. Actually, the problem is worse today because now I have six children with five in school.

During the transfer from one company to the other, I was unemployed for only 2 days. I was with General Electric for five and a half years, again with regular advancement, when the workload within GE started to deteriorate and in 1969 the layoff started again. I began to look around and found that in general, the outlook for engineers was not good. Some of my friends who were still with RCA indicated that RCA was doing some selective hiring. The rumor at General Electric was that RCA was being swamped with applications from engineers.

I filled out an RCA application and had one of my friends deliver it to the personnel department. In the meantime, I also contacted RCA management people that I knew from my previous employment. In January of 1970, I was invited into RCA for an interview by a former associate who was now an engineering manager. He described some of the jobs coming up and said it would be a month or two before the manpower load would be firm and he would call me then.

At General Electric, the layoffs continued. In March 1970, the engineer who sat next to me and who I ate lunch with everyday was notified he was on layoff. I had worked with this man for several years and he was a very competent engineer. A couple of days later, I received an attractive offer from RCA which I accepted. I was extremely gratified by the fact that the same people who had put me on lavoff 6 years earlier thought enough of my ability to hire me to work for them, again.

When I gave my notice to GE they rescinded my friend's layoff and gave him my assignments, which gave me a lot of personal satisfaction that this man was now employed again. When I reported to RCA, my assignment was as lead engineer responsible for the design of the communication antenna that would be used on the Apollo 15 mission to transmit pictures from the lunar Rover to earth. This was an excellent assignment because I would be coordinating the efforts of four and sometimes five other engineers, plus being responsible for the costs and schedule of the program, plus developing the mechanical design, plus the interesting part about this assignment was inter