Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: One Social Security retirement age not for all workers

WHEN THE THERMOMETER reaches triple digits day after day in Las Vegas there are men and women working and sweating outside or in even hotter cramped quarters in buildings. These workers are being paid good wages and they earn every dollar paid and even more. Those new buildings and paved roads don't reach completion because some guy sits behind a desk and says they should be built. They are built by skilled construction workers who sweat during summer months and freeze in the chilly winds during the winter.

Last year, when Congress was moving to increase the age limit for receiving Social Security benefits, I recalled working on construction jobs as an ironworker. Again, today, still working in an air-conditioned office, I hear some of the same people who lifted full retirement age from 65 to 67 now wanting to boost it up to 70 years of age. Because of our longer lives and overall better health this idea probably makes good sense to people working in almost ideal conditions at jobs not too strenuous.

As I pointed out when the first jump was made from 65 to 67 years of age, sitting at a desk in good health isn't the lifestyle of millions of Americans. I can easily recall the ironworkers, operators, painters, pile drivers, laborers, plumbers and pipefitters on construction jobs who were worn out and unhealthy from their hard life long before they became 60. Large numbers don't make it to that age.

During the winter months, at a construction camp in Washington, I could hear my fellow workers coughing in adjoining rooms as they rolled out for breakfast long before daylight. Hot coffee, pancakes, eggs and bacon, along with a cigarette, made a good starter to face the cold wind outside. Many of them had faced this situation for 30 and 40 winters, but their bodies hadn't survived the beating as well as the iron they worked with every day. As I look back now, I remember them as old men, but they were only in their 40s and early 50s. None of them are alive today.

The iron rods and rolls of wire froze your hands and shoulder in the winter and blistered them in the summer months. There's just no happy medium for the people who build our roads, hotels, office buildings, heating and sewage plants, dams and bridges.

Two days ago a study by the General Accounting Office spoke to the raising of retirement ages and showed that it would improve the solvency of the Social Security program "but may cause hardship for some." It comes right down to admitting the wear and tear on blue-collar workers is greater and their opportunity to be employed longer into their late 60s is less than that for white-collar workers.

"Blue-collar workers will likely experience more difficulties in extending their careers than will white-collar workers. Because of the nature of their jobs, many older blue-collar workers -- who compose 40 percent of the labor force between the ages of 53 and 63 -- experience health problems that may inhibit their ability to work and reduce the demand for their labor. We analyzed the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative sample composed of individuals born between 1931 and 1941, to compare the health status of blue- and white-collar workers."

The report goes on to say, "Our analysis found that older blue-collar workers are at greater risk for having several health problems compared with older white-collar workers. We assessed the effects of occupation on specific health problems, controlling for employment status, age, race, sex, alcohol consumption, and smoking. Blue-collar workers are more likely to have musculoskeletal problems, respiratory diseases, diabetes, and emotional disorders than are white-collar workers. For example, blue-collar workers are 58 percent more likely to have arthritis, 42 percent more likely to have chronic lung disease, and 25 percent more likely to have emotional disorders. White-collar workers were not at greater risk for having any of the health problems we examined. White-collar workers did have higher rates of cancer; however, the difference was not statistically significant."

I'm glad that members of Congress are finally taking a close look at some of the human problems their urge to increase solvency by raising retirement ages may cause. GAO notes, "When all blue-collar occupations are grouped together, blue-collar workers are 80 percent more likely than white-collar workers to experience pain that affects their ability to perform their jobs. ..."

The real impact, financially and physically, is best expressed in the following paragraphs: "Older blue-collar workers with health problems have lower earnings and are in less demand for their labor. Blue-collar work is often physically demanding, and current or potential employers may foresee a risk of a worker's compensation claim or increased health care costs from older employees. This reduced labor demand means these workers may accumulate less wealth, which makes it difficult for them to afford to retire even if they are not physically capable of working more years. ..."

This all adds up to realizing that "older blue-collar workers with health problems had higher unemployment rates than healthy blue-collar workers. Our analysis also showed that blue-collar workers had higher unemployment rates than white-collar workers with similar health status. Corresponding to these higher unemployment rates, the blue-collar workers with health problems had lower earnings. ... As noted earlier, these reduced earnings make it difficult for unhealthy older blue-collar workers to afford to retire."

It didn't take this study to inform me of the difference between the lives of blue-collar and white-collar workers. I've been both, and still haven't forgotten the contributions the blue-collar workers make to a great country. When making retirement rules we must remember that what may seem fair for one category of workers isn't fair for others.

archive