Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-01-25
Compulsory Retirement
Conflicts With Reason

To the Editor of The star
The CARRIER Harreld bill to amend
the civil service retirement act APP
pears singularly uneconomic and un-
ethical in Its requirement that an en-
ploye of retirement age-under this
bill. s. to IS years. depending
upon the position filled-shal not only
be automatically separated from the
service. but shall not be employed
again in any position within the pur-
view of this act, nor he appointed to
another position in any branch Of the
Government service.
The underlying logic of thi. pro
vision appears to be that an employe
of retirement age must perforce be in
capacitated from rendering further ac-
ceptable service. Mere logic. however.
may conflict with common sense. COM
mon experience and common human
ity. Under the existing retirement
law there is a presumption Of inca
pacity upon attainment Of retirement
age. but this presumption may be re-
butted by proof that the fact is other
wise. and provision is made for exten.
slons of employment where the ap-
pointing officer is satisfied that such
will be for the Sood of the service.
This provision enables the Govern
ment to retain the services of en-
pioSSS Ioulu ply SlCdllN ana mentally
flt who possess, in addition, valu-
able training, the result Of years of
service. True. pressure is sometimes
brought to bear upon appointing OH
GERS to retain an employee whose days
OF usefulness are past, and this ex.
perlence is probably distinctly unpleas.
ant. but are not such experiences in.
cident to almost any situation of au-
thority and responsibility?
In the Army and Navy there is full
recognition of the fact that retired
officer is not ipso facto moribund. Not
infrequently. following retirement
and often coincident with retirement
he Is assigned to duties of the high.
est difficulty and sponsibihty-duties
whose very Importance determines
their placement in experienced hands.
In the legislative branch of our Gov.
eminent there are positions which are
virtually the counterparts of positions
in the executive branch. Is il not con-
celNabie that an experienced pension
examiner. patent examiner or Treas.
! ury clerk familiar with Federal an.
preparations might be a useful EN-
ploye In the proper committee on Cant.
. tol Hill? And there are MANY minor
positions in the Government service
that retired Federal civil servant
| might acceptably fill. and thereby exc
| out. his slender retirement pay, which
! under the terms of the bill, would at
most be 500 a month, and for MANY
| persons much less.
Far from barring the retired Fed
eral employe from all other employ
! ment under the Government, it might
be urged with good deal of grace
that he has an equitable claim for &C
! tual preference. For half a century
past salaries in Federal positions have
been woefully low, making it practi
cally impossible for an employee with
| a family to save anything. Reaching
the retirement age. he is dropped from
the service upon a mere pittance
What more fitting and proper than
that the victim Of the Governments
parsimony should be accorded a pref
| erence In employment in other gov
ernmental fields? Barring a person
| and especially class Of persons, from
opportunities of useful employment,
is serious business, and, on the part OF
! the Government, justifiable only upon
the clearest showing of public need.
GEORGE A. WARREN.