[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REMOVING RED TAPE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S APPRENTICESHIP
APPROVAL PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM
AND PAPERWORK REDUCTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-009 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
DONALD MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman
LARRY COMBEST, Texas NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
SUE W. KELLY, New York BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania Islands
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MICHAEL PENCE, Indiana STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
SAM GRAVES, Missouri GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr., New York MARK UDALL, Colorado
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico
Doug Thomas, Staff Director
Phil Eskeland, Deputy Staff Director
Michael Day, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Chairman
LARRY COMBEST, Texas ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
SUE KELLY, New York BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
TODD AKIN, Missouri JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico
Barry Pineles, Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held on September 25, 2001............................... 1
WITNESSES
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. House of Representatives................ 4
Dunham, Ken, Executive Director, Inland Northwest AGC............ 9
Bonk, John, President, M. Davis & Sons, Inc...................... 11
Herzog, John, Staff VP for Public Policy, Air Conditioning
Contractor of America.......................................... 13
Krul, Robert, National Apprenticeship Coordinator, United Union
of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers................... 15
APPENDIX
Opening statements:
Pence, Hon. Mike............................................. 28
Brady, Hon. Robert A......................................... 31
Prepared statements:
Wicker, Hon. Roger........................................... 37
Dunham, Ken.................................................. 40
Bonk, John................................................... 47
Herzog, John................................................. 58
Krul, Robert................................................. 65
Additional material:
Prepared statement of Mechanical Electrical Sheet Metal
Alliance................................................... 69
Letter to Chairman Pence from Kathleen Garrity, Associated
Builders and Contractors of Western Washington............. 76
Letter to Chairman Pence from Edward Sullivan, Building and
Construction Trades Department............................. 78
REMOVING RED TAPE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S APPRENTICESHIP
APPROVAL PROCESS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform
and Oversight,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Pence (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Chairman Pence. This hearing will come to order.
I would like to welcome all of the participants, as well as
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and
Oversight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Robert Brady.
I want to welcome you to the hearing entitled Removing Red
Tape from the Department of Labors Apprenticeship Approval
Process. We have a spate of expert witnesses as well as the
author of important legislation on this issue.
Let me begin with a few short thoughts and then we will
move immediately to my colleague's opening statement and then,
of course, testimony. My expectation is that the members in the
room can expect a vote between 10:30 and 11:00. In the event
that there is a vote on the floor, anyone in attendance and
witnesses should be advised that we will simply recess for a
brief period of time and then reconvene. We will complete this
subcommittee hearing today in the midst of what will probably
be a busy schedule across the street.
The hearing today, of course, addresses the need for
reforming our regulatory procedures used to approve
apprenticeship programs in the United States. I am honored to
be a co-sponsor of H.R. 1950, the Apprenticeship Enhancement
Act of 2001, authored by my good friend in attendance today,
the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker.
I look forward to his testimony and that of other witnesses
who will discuss the procedures for registering a federal
apprenticeship program and the problems they face in receiving
such approval.
As the Secretary of Labor recently noted in her Labor Day
address on the state of the workforce, America, more than ever,
needs a skilled workforce. The office buildings of our cities,
the shopping centers of our suburban towns, the homes of our
rural counties are all built by skilled craftsmen who have
mastered their art through apprenticeship programs. What
concerns me and should concern every member of Congress, the
Administration and businesses is whether America has the
processes in place to train a new generation of skilled
craftsmen.
Since at least the time of the Middle Ages, young men and
now young women in the modern era have learned trades at the
hands of masters. The thousands-of-year-old process of training
new workers continues today.
During the heights of the worst economic disaster in
American history, the Great Depression, Congress enacted what
came to be known as the National Apprenticeship Act to ensure
that employers did not take advantage of young workers' need
for training and jobs. The National Apprenticeship Act requires
that the Secretary of Labor promulgate standards to ensure the
welfare of apprentices. The act also requires that the
secretary works with the states to carry out this function. I
think it is absolutely vital for the future of this country to
ensure that apprentices are protected yet trained well enough
that they have a mobility to move where the labor markets
dictate that they are needed.
The Department of Labor regulations set forth the criteria
by which any employer should be able to obtain approval of an
apprenticeship program. Approval is sought either from the
United States Department of Labor or a state apprenticeship
council given that authority by the federal government. An
applicant that meets the criteria set forth by the Secretary
should have the program approved with all deliberate speed
without regard to who is sponsoring the apprenticeship program.
If the applicant does not meet the criteria, the Department
or State Apprenticeship Council should provide a written
explanation of the deficiencies so the applicant can modify the
program accordingly. The appropriate government agency then
should meet quickly when the application is resubmitted to
approve the modified program.
Yet these simple procedures are not evident in the approval
of apprenticeship program in America today. In certain
instances, it has literally taken years and multiple lawsuits
to obtain approval of a qualified apprenticeship program and
this is unacceptable. Such behavior, whether at the federal or
the state level, is wrong and it is our purpose in this
subcommittee hearing to entertain a proposal before the
Congress to address this inequity. That is one reason I have
decided to co-sponsor H.R. 1950 and I believe it would provide
regulatory certainty to a process fraught with unbridled
discretion and endless meetings of federal and state
bureaucrats.
Ultimately, I think 1950's reforms will help all employers
interested in providing our young men and women with training
in skilled crafts that this country will need for not only the
economic growth of the 21st century but also the economic
dynamism that our nation may well need in the long struggle
into which we entered two weeks ago today.
With that, I yield to the ranking member of this
subcommittee who is kind to join us today and I recognize Mr.
Brady for any opening comments.
[Chairman Pence's statement may be found in appendix.]
Mr. Brady. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the
sake of time, I am going to make some brief remarks and would
ask unanimous consent to submit the rest for the record.
Chairman Pence. Without objection.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
As the population ages and the number of potential workers
decline, we must find ways to help meet a new demand for
skilled labor. One way which has been suggested is by changing
the federal apprenticeship programs.
Since 1937, the apprenticeship program has a record of
great success: 440,000 workers are trained under apprenticeship
programs held to high standards of excellence in the skilled
trades. We depend upon these workers to make sure that our
buildings are well built. Sometimes we take for granted how
well our buildings are put together. In Japan, they build homes
to last 30 years. In America, we build them to last a century.
That is the result of high standards of training in skilled
trades like construction, roofing, plumbing and electrical
wiring.
This program makes sure that when you buy a new home and
turn on the faucet, you do not blow an electrical fuse. The men
and women who have graduated from apprenticeship programs are
the professionals who built this country.
Clearly, we want the strongest apprenticeship programs
possible. The proposal under consideration does nothing to
strengthen the current program and, in some instances, may
weaken it.
Proponents of this bill see backups and lack of action on
applications as the problem. I can understand and appreciate
that frustration. There is a labor shortage in the skilled
trades and training programs are needed. But the solution is
not to waive the standards that maintain apprenticeship
programs at such high quality.
At best, Mr. Chairman, the proposal in this bill is only a
small piece to the puzzle. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in finding a sensible solution to the current
skilled labor shortage, one that maintains our training
standards and our apprentice programs and ensures the quality
workmanship that makes America proud.
I feel real, real close to this issue. I am not an expert
on anything, but I am close to an expert on this. I graduated
from a four-year apprenticeship program in the carpenters
union. I still carry a current card there. And I am close the
apprenticeship programs. I tutor on every Tuesday night that I
am not here and have been for the last seven, eight years in
our programs that help these young men and women get into them.
We do need them. It is necessary and, again, I cannot
express enough of my abilities that I can lend toward helping
making this remedy the situation that we do find ourselves in.
So I am pledging to work along with you and with my colleagues
in trying to come up with a decent solution.
Thank you.
[Mr. Brady's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
And with that, we will recognize our first witness, the
Honorable Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the author of the
Apprenticeship Enhancement Act of 2001.
Good morning.
We will recognize the gentleman from Washington to
introduce a constituent and friend before returning to Mr.
Wicker.
Mr. Nethercutt, welcome.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brady, and I
thank my colleague and my dear friend Mr. Wicker for yielding
for a moment. I apologize for this.
I am delighted to be here before the subcommittee to
introduce Ken Dunham, who will testify on a panel after Mr.
Wicker testifies.
I have known Ken Dunham for years. He is a northwesterner.
He is affiliated with the Association of General Contractors in
Spokane, Washington. He has a wealth of experience, Mr.
Chairman, about apprenticeship programs, about the labor force,
and about the need to have a strong labor force in my region of
the country. He will be a valuable witness as the subcommittee
considers this bill. I appreciate your welcoming him, all of
you here, and I am delighted to have a chance to say a good
word about Ken Dunham. He is a fine man, a very credible
citizen with respect to the issues that are facing the
committee and so I am delighted to do so.
And I again thank the chairman for his indulgence and I
thank Mr. Wicker for his and I apologize for having to leave
early.
Chairman Pence. Not at all. Thank you very much.
With that, the author of this legislation, the gentleman
from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, is recognized.
Mr. Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Wicker. I do appreciate the subcommittee having this
hearing and allowing me to testify and I appreciate the remarks
of both gentlemen who have spoken. I am delighted to know that
Mr. Brady is a graduate of an apprenticeship program and is
still involved in that process and I am glad to see that both
of you have spoken in support of the concept. I think that
every member of Congress certainly would like to make the
process better if we can do so.
My remarks today and my legislation deal simply with
streamlining the approval process. There may be other things
that we need to discuss with regard to apprenticeship programs,
but that is what H.R. 1950 deals with. Let me just say I want
to talk a little more about what an apprenticeship program is
and should be, why they need to be registered, why there is a
need for more skilled workers and then spend a little time
talking about actual experiences that I have learned from
business people and contractors in my own district and then a
brief discussion of my legislation.
Mr. Brady mentioned 440,000 apprentices in the United
States now. I had the number of approximately 400,000. But
certainly while that is a large number of men and women being
trained, I think we should have the goal of raising that figure
to one million. Everything I hear is that we need a large
increase in the number of skilled workers because these
apprentices are our future electricians, carpenters, plumbers,
pipe fitters and mechanics.
And, as Mr. Brady said, they are more educated, they are
more highly motivated, more productive, better skilled. They
are more likely to become supervisors. And they are more likely
to earn higher salaries and experience less unemployment. So we
need more apprentices and I think we can all agree on that.
Certainly the reason for registering the apprenticeship
programs is that only the registered ones are permitted to pay
apprenticeship wages on projects where there is federal
funding. Also, many municipalities and states require that the
apprenticeship program be registered in order to qualify for
the apprenticeship wage.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, two years
ago, contractors from my home state of Mississippi came to
Washington to discuss the challenges facing the construction
industry. They listed a number of items but they all agreed
that the critical shortage of skilled workers was a paramount
issue in the industry.
One of the electrical contractors related the type of
apprenticeship program horror story which discourages other
potential program sponsors from even formulating an
application. In seeking approval for a line erector's
apprenticeship program in the State of California, this
Mississippi company spent nearly $1 million and five years
before the program was finally approved and then only after a
successful lawsuit.
It took the same company two years and $250,000 in expenses
in the State of Washington not to even get an answer. It is not
that the program was denied because it was a poor plan. No one
ever said that. But the State Apprenticeship Council or the SAC
in that state did not even give the program sponsor an answer.
After these experiences, the company no longer seeks
approval of their apprenticeship programs in states that are
governed by State Apprenticeship Councils.
During this meeting, the other contractors in the room all
nodded their heads in understanding. Either they or someone
they knew had similar experience. The costs in time and money
to obtain approval for apprenticeship programs is a strong
disincentive to sponsoring programs of their own. Therefore,
there are not enough new programs that are submitted for
approval and the costly and lengthy delays in the approval
process are denying job training opportunities to thousands who
are awaiting approval.
So, members of the subcommittee, to address these concerns,
I have introduced H.R. 1950, the Apprenticeship Enhancement
Act. This legislation does not change the standards which are
required of apprenticeship programs in any way. Those are not
changed at all under this legislation. Without sacrificing
standards, we can create more apprenticeship programs, thereby
creating more job training opportunities.
All this legislation does is remove bureaucratic roadblocks
so that apprenticeship programs which meet federal standards
can be approved in a timely manner, and so that potential
program sponsors are not discouraged by approval processes that
can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years.
The bill currently has 24 bipartisan cosponsors.
H.R. 1950 requires that the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau
of Apprenticeship Program and Training, BAT and State
Apprenticeship Councils, SACS, act on applications within 90
days after an application is submitted. This should be
sufficient time for these government agencies to make a
decision. It should not take more than three months to
determine if an apprentice application meets the 22 basic
elements of an acceptable apprenticeship program.
However, my legislation allows for unforeseen
circumstances. If for any reason a SAC or BAT cannot render a
decision within 90 days, they can notify the applicant of the
status of the application and then make a decision within the
next 30 days. If after the additional 30-day period there is
still no verdict, the application would then be forwarded to
the U.S. Department of Labor. The purpose of this provision is
to eliminate the possibility of a pocket veto by either a BAT
or a SAC.
In addition to these reasonable time lines, H.R. 1950 also
requires a written justification for disapproval of an
application. With this explanation, sponsors of programs which
are denied can work with the agencies to improve their programs
so that they submit new and approved applications. The
legislation also allows for an appeal to the Department of
Labor if the applicant believes that their program was
improperly denied.
This legislation, I repeat, does not change standards and
does not provide for unlimited appeals on the part of a program
sponsor. Instead, the bill does just one thing; it asks for an
answer from the government agency.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the
concept of streamlining the application process and I would
urge the subcommittee to give favorable consideration to the
legislation, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Wicker's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you for that testimony. I know it is
not customary to ask too many questions of members, but I
wondered if I might, rather than a question, ask you to
elaborate on your assertion today that I think is very relevant
to both sides of this subcommittee that your legislation does
not change the standards which are required of apprenticeship
programs in any way.
In evidence today and in other discussions about your bill,
there seems to be an impression that it does and I wanted to
ask you, if time permits, for you to elaborate on that, however
briefly.
Mr. Wicker. Well, I would suggest that persons who are
concerned about that particular issue simply need to read the
legislation. This is a bill simply about the approval process
and Ireally cannot state any stronger than that that we leave
the standards the same. Perhaps the standards need to be revisited by
the Congress. I do not know. Perhaps they need to be visited by the
various agencies. But this bill is very narrow in its scope and it
simply says that under the present standards and guidelines, changing
none of the criteria whatsoever, the agency should simply give an
answer: does the application qualify for approval or not?
And I would submit to members of the subcommittee that 120
days is ample time in order to see if an application on its
face meets the criteria.
Now, perhaps once a program is up and running, I am certain
there are other safeguards to make sure that they are doing
what the application proposed to do and promised to do, but
this legislation simply deals with the question of whether the
application is sufficient in order for the program to get
started.
Chairman Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Brady, did you have anything else?
Mr. Brady. Just I would not dare question you, I just
wanted to ask you for help, so to speak.
You did all the work on this and I appreciate it. Is there
any way we could play with the standard or try to--not play
with the standard, pardon me. With the application and the way
the application is looked at to speed that up?
The problem that I have is the 120 days they automatically
get in and I think then there is no screening process
whatsoever, there is no qualification whatsoever, and the
problem with that is through an accredited apprenticeship
program as I know, I went through one, you have to pass every
year. And if you get applicants that should not be in the
program originally, they may fail and you are loading up the
process with first year apprentices that do not go to the
second year, do not go to the third year and, in some cases, a
third year and a fourth year. I went to a four-year program,
some only have two and some have three. And if you
automatically let somebody in, it is like waiting in line for
something, if you wait long enough, you get in automatically.
Maybe we could work on the problem that they cannot get to
these people in time and give them some beefing up to make sure
that they do have enough manpower or whatever the problem is to
review these applications in time, within the 120-day period.
Just letting somebody in can cause a problem. If you have
120 people in the first apprenticeship class in the first year
and 60 drop out because they should not have been there, then
you are short in the second year and it is hard to get an
apprentice--you do not let an apprentice in on your second
year. They go in the first year and go through a four-year or
two-year respectively program. That is the main problem that I
have looking at this.
And I would love to sit down and work with you a little
further with it.
Mr. Wicker. Well, I appreciate the sentiment of that
question and I would be delighted to work with you on that and
perhaps craft a bill that you could be a co-sponsor of.
This bill is somewhat different from the legislation that I
introduced during the previous Congress as a result of some
conversations I had with people who had doubts about it, but
let me address several of your concerns.
First of all, the legislation does not provide for an
automatic approval after the initial 90-day period with the 30-
day extension. All it says is that after that 120-day period if
an agency will not give an answer, yes or no, then it goes up
to a higher authority to make the decision. After the second
period, which is a 30-day period, the application is then
forwarded to the United States Department of Labor. It is still
then an application and there is no directive in the
legislation that says the Department of Labor should
automatically approve it. It just says after 120 days we need a
yes or no answer or we are going to give it to somebody who can
look at it.
So I hope that addresses your concern in that regard.
Congressman, if there is a need for additional manpower in
order to actually view the applications and see if they are
adequate, then I think that is a legitimate issue that might be
very cost effective for this Congress to look at, if we need
more people to make the approval process run more efficiently.
But there is no reason--and I hope you will agree with
this, Congressman, there is no excuse for year after year after
year, the same application not even receiving an answer, not
even receiving a status report about what the problem is, what
is wrong with this application. We certainly need to fix that
aspect. And that is all this legislation does.
With regard to an additional point that you made, if a
program that submits an effective application is then up and
running and proves not to be effective there should certainly
be sanctions by the government agencies to address that
particular problem.
Chairman Pence. The chair would welcome the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Phelps, and provide an opportunity for any
opening comments that you might have.
Mr. Phelps. Thank you.
Chairman Pence. With that, again, our thanks to the
gentleman from Mississippi for a direct and candid exchange. We
are very grateful for your leadership on this issue.
Mr. Wicker. I am grateful to you also, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pence. And we will allow you to move on to a busy
day and then ask our panel of four to move to the witness
table.
Thank you.
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight
of the Small Business Committee. And I know I speak on behalf
of the entire subcommittee in welcoming you and expressing
appreciation for your time and expertise today.
The procedure that we will follow is I will give a brief
introduction of each witness and then you will be individually
recognized after your introduction for what will be five
minutes of time. Most of you are veterans of this institution,
but for those that may not, you can observe the lights and
respond accordingly. The yellow does not mean step on the
accelerator, it means being to slow down and then the red means
to wrap up your comments.
We will entertain brief remarks from each of the witnesses
in the interests of time and then move into any questions that
your comments have stimulated from myself, the ranking member
or the gentleman from Illinois or any other member that joins
us.
With that, Mr. Ken Dunham is with us, already having been
generously introduced by the gentleman from Washington,
Congressman Nethercutt, earlier today.
Ken Dunham is Executive Director of the Inland Northwest
AGC, a chapter of the Associated General Contractors of
America, which is a national construction industry trade
association. The Spokane-based organization has a membership of
nearly 560 firms, representing the highway, utility and
commercial building industry subcontractors and suppliers.
Prior to coming to Spokane in 1993, Mr. Dunham held a
similar position from 1990 to 1993 with the Montana Contractors
Association. He is a graduate of the University of Montana with
a degree in radio and television journalism, which is my
background as well, so we will expect a stellar presentation. A
native of Troy, Montana and is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Ken Dunham.
STATEMENT OF KEN DUNHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INLAND NORTHWEST
AGC, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, FOR THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS
Mr. Dunham. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman
and distinguished members of the committee. I am pleased to be
here this morning to discuss the issue of apprenticeship
training. My name is Ken Dunham. I am the Executive Director of
the Inland Northwest Associated General Contractors in Spokane,
Washington.
The members of the AGC of America have consistently ranked
the shortage of skilled construction labor among their most
critical business issues. The construction industry needs more
skilled workers. By encouraging the development of more
registered apprenticeship programs, we will have more skilled
and better trained craftspeople in all aspects of construction.
We need to abandon those practices that have restricted
apprenticeship registration.
House Resolution 1950 will help bring some accountability
to the approval process and is a great start to the process of
raising both the number and the skill levels of our workers
throughout construction.
I hope to be able to provide the committee today with an
illustration of how the approval process works in real life and
impress upon you the need for reform and accountability.
I have oversight of apprenticeship and training programs
for the AGC chapter in Spokane. In this capacity, I serve as a
trustee for the open shop/non-union carpenters' and
construction equipment operators' apprentice program as well as
serving as both a trustee and an apprentice committee member
for an AGC Teamster's apprenticeship program. This background
has allowed me to have that rare perspective of serving in both
union and open shop apprenticeship programs.
Until the early 1980s, most of the apprenticeship programs
were administered as joint labor and management programs.
Attempts to open up the process to non-union programs has met
with some success in certain areas. However, patchwork
acceptance of open shop programs does not help fill the need
for more trained workers. We do believe that there is a place
for both the union-affiliated apprenticeship programs and
apprenticeship programs for the open shop segment of the
industry.
The Inland Northwest AGC attempted to gain approval for
construction trade programs without success for ten years,
beginning in 1983. The chapter applied for carpentry and
construction equipment operator programs in January of 1994. In
that same year, we re-submitted carpentry apprenticeship
programs and operator programs for approval and were denied
twice that year, despite the approval of both the SAC staff and
the BAT staff in the State of Washington.
Following those denials, we had no choice but to file suit
against the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry,
as well as each member individually of the State Apprentice
Council.
In January 1995, the two programs were finally approved
after a council meeting that was punctuated by much shouting,
threats, and the attempt of the council to go into an illegally
closed meeting to discuss strategies to again deny our program.
The end result was that the programs were finally approved.
This action then resulted in the withdrawal of our lawsuit. The
challenges to our programs continue today and include
unwarranted, unreasonable and often contradictory demands for
data and oversight.
I have observed that that same level of oversight and
interference is not present in the union program on which I
serve as a trustee and a committee member.
The latest issue with the State of Washington
Apprenticeship Council was the July 2001 denial of approval for
an open shop construction craft laborers apprentice program.
The SAC rejected the program after vague, confusing and often
contradictory arguments were made on the grounds that it was
unnecessary because the union program was in place, that AGC
jurisdiction lines did not match up with union lines and
challenges were made on the professional and trade
qualifications of the proposed members of the committee. None
of these were valid criticisms and the programs again had
garnered the support of both the SAC staff and the BAT staff.
We have resubmitted the program for the next meeting in
October.
The AGC supports Congressman Wicker in his efforts and
applauds H.R. 1950 as a step in the right direction. We welcome
all attempts, legislative and regulatory, to improve a system
that is so vital to the construction industry and the nation's
economy.
In the past, there have been efforts to improve, revamp and
update the regulations governing apprenticeship. In the early
1990s, the Department of Labor developed an initiative to
improve the apprentice system in the nation. I list those ideas
in which we agreed with the Department of Labor in my written
comments.
The AGC believes that this is a good time to revisit many
of these ideas and to use the legislative and regulatory
processes in concert with one another to improve the
apprenticeship system.
Thank you for your time and interest today in this crucial
matter. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have
regarding my testimony. It is my hope that together we can find
a positive way to address the concerns raised and help workers
secure and maintain rewarding careers in the construction
industry.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Dunham's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you, Mr. Dunham.
And, again, we will run through the witnesses and their
presentations and then hopefully have a very productive
dialogue with the members present.
John Bonk is also with us today. He was raised in the
Wilmington area, graduated from St. Elizabeth's High School and
attended Drexel University and University of Delaware, where he
started working in the construction field at a very early age.
He was a certified welder an still holds a long boom crane
operator's license.
John started with M. Davis & Sons in 1978 as a project
engineer when the company had 15 employees. he is currently
president and part owner of that company now, which has over
400 full-time employees and performs work both regionally and
nationwide.
He is also past president of the Delaware chapter of
Associated Builders and Contractors and on the national board
and is recognized for five minutes.
Welcome, Mr. Bonk.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BONK, PRESIDENT, M. DAVIS & SONS, INC.,
WILMINGTON, DE, FOR THE ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS
Mr. Bonk. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is John Bonk. I am President of M. Davis &
Sons, Inc., located in Wilmington, Delaware.
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, I would
like to thank Chairman Pence and the members of the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight for this
opportunity to address ABC's concerns regarding the hurdles and
often overburdensome procedures faced by businesses when they
seek approval of their apprenticeship programs. I will be
summarizing my comments, but I request that my full statement
be submitted for the official record.
Additionally, ABC chapters from Hawaii, Washington and
California will be submitting additional comments regarding
this issue and we request that their statements also be
included in the record.
Chairman Pence. Without objection.
Mr. Bonk. For over 100 years, M. Davis & Sons has offered
fully integrated industrial construction. We have built our
reputation through providing quality workmanship for our
clients and safe, healthy work sites for our employees. We
normally have 60 to 70 registered apprentices. In addition, we
employ a full-time training manager and spend in excess of
$300,000 per year in training.
M. Davis & Sons has been a member of the Delaware Chapter
of ABC for 20 years. ABC is a national trade association
representing more than 2300 merit shop contractors,
subcontractors, material suppliers, and construction-related
firms within a network of 82 chapters throughout the United
States and Guam. According to the National Bureau of Labor
Statistics, merit shop contractors comprised 87 percent of the
construction workforce in 1997, up from 17 percent in 1947.
Our diverse membership is bound by a shared commitment to
the merit shop philosophy within the construction industry.
This philosophy is based on the principles of full and open
competition unfettered by the government and non-discrimination
based on labor affiliation in the awarding of construction
contracts to the lowest responsive bidder through open and
competitive bidding. This process assures that taxpayers and
consumers will receive the most for their construction dollars.
ABC's commitment to quality training is unquestioned.
Beginning in 1960 with the establishment of ABC's first
apprenticeship program in Baltimore, ABC recognized that the
future of the construction industry lies in its ability to
attract and retain the men and women necessary to meet the
nation's construction needs. ABC provides formal apprenticeship
training programs that are registered with the Department of
Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. These programs
meet all federal and state requirements for formal
apprenticeship and prevailing wage work, including employer-
sponsored classroom instruction and on-the-job training. Upon
successful completion, craft workers are recognized at the
journey level in their trade and awarded their BAT certificate.
The depression-era National Apprenticeship Act which serves
as the basis for the voluntary national apprenticeship system
is no longer responsive to needs of both employers and
employees. The regulations which govern apprenticeship do not
address the new and innovative training techniques that are
utilized by employers and employees today.
Delaware has a state-sponsored apprenticeship program.
While the State Department of Labor employees who administer
the program are dedicated individuals, the program is
antiquated and hamstrung by bureaucracy. Because of the time
and effort it would take to register ABC's apprenticeship
program in Delaware, the contracting community has accepted the
status quo.
Over the years, Delaware has lost much of its manufacturing
base and construction could fill the job void this has left.
Unfortunately, numerous apprenticeship problems preclude this.
It is hard to keep students in the apprenticeship training
because they get bored with the outdated training methods. Lack
of reciprocity with neighboring states make it economically
unwise to utilize apprentices in some instances.
In Delaware and nationally, we have an ever increasing need
for skilled people which is going unanswered. The contracting
community is willing to invest the time and money it would take
to establish good apprenticeship programs, but are reluctant in
the face of the government.
ABC is looking to accomplish five things. The first of
those is due process. Through the enactment of the
Apprenticeship Enhancement Act of 2001 sponsored by
Representative Roger Wicker and Ruben Hinojosa, the federal
government could restore much needed balance and fairness to
the approval of apprenticeship programs.
Reciprocity. It is essential to require one state's
apprentices to recognize those registered in other states.
Apprentices should be able to work in more than one state.
Portability. Registered apprentices currently in training
need to have the ability to move from state to state and enter
into another state's registered apprenticeship program at the
same level they had attained in a prior state without penalty.
Competency based training. Employees who have previously
acquired skill sets should not be required to begin the
apprenticeship program from the beginning.
Distance learning. In order to achieve apprenticeship
reform, the Department of Labor must increase their usage of
technology and the Internet. There is a great need for
flexibility and variable options and training methods.
Thank you for this opportunity to be here today. I welcome
any questions that the committee may have.
[Mr. Bonk's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you, Mr. Bonk, for your presentation.
With that, we will take a brief recess while the members
discharge their duty across the street and then we will return
for Mr. Herzog's and Mr. Krul's presentations and then the
following questions.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Pence. I would like to thank everyone for their
patience. I am informed that the ranking member will be joining
us momentarily, as other members are also returning from the
House floor.
I want to welcome you back to this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight entitled
Removing Red Tape from the Department of Labor's Apprenticeship
Approval Process, where we are focusing specifically on H.R.
1950, the Apprenticeship Enhancement Act of 2001.
As I mentioned before, we will complete with our testimony
and then move to any questions or dialogue thereafter and we
should be able to complete our work here before it is time to
break for lunch.
Our next witness is John Herzog, who is the Staff Vice
President for Public Policy for Air Conditioning Contractors of
America. John has nearly 15 years of government experience,
including elective and appointed positions at the local, state
and federal levels of government. In addition, he ran his own
advertising and public relations business in Colorado for
approximately 20 years. Prior to joining ACCA, he was vice
president of a Washington, D.C. based public affairs firm where
he represented the interests of small business and rural
associates on Capitol Hill.
In addition to his undergraduate degree from the University
of Colorado, he holds an M.S. injournalism from UCLA and has
taught journalism, marketing, consumer behavior, business
communications and technical writing at the college level. He is, among
other things, listed in the Who's Who in Politics in America.
And with that, I recognize Mr. John Herzog gratefully for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HERZOG, STAFF VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC
POLICY, AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Herzog. Thank you, Mr. Pence and Representative Brady.
We appreciate the opportunity to enter in to the national
dialogue on improving the recruitment and training of America's
skilled workforces.
Originally, as you know, Dick Stilwilll, chapter manager
for the Oregon-Washington chapter of ACCA was scheduled to
testify. The events of September 11th changed that.
Consequently, he asked me to deliver his message and I have
also spoken with several other of our chapter executives who
operate apprenticeship programs, so I think you will find the
information of help.
As you know, ACCA is the nation's largest trade association
of those who design, install and maintain heating, ventilating,
commercial, residential, refrigeration and air conditioning
systems, known as HVACR.
We are a federation of 60 state and local affiliated
organizations representing approximately 9000 contractor
companies nationwide. Approximately 20 percent of our
membership is union affiliated.
Prior to September 11th, the number one concern of our
members, union and non-union, was addressing the labor shortage
in the industry. It is not an issue of union versus non-union,
but one of simply putting enough qualified people on the
streets to meet the needs of our community.
Discounting the fallout on the economy from the terrorist
attacks, the Bureau of Labor Statistics had projected that the
HVACR contracting industry will face a labor shorting of
104,000 by the year 2004. The entire industry employees 600,000
to 800,000 people, so you can see this represents a significant
shortfall.
Part of the solution lies in the way we train technicians.
To begin, we support the Apprenticeship Enhancement Act for it
addresses part of the problem. However, our experience
highlights other barriers to training that deserve your
attention.
ACCA became involved in apprenticeship training about 20
years ago through our chapters. Today, I would like to focus on
specific problems that Dick had encountered in Oregon. Our
Oregon chapter is often allied with another local trade
association. Dick said they planned to start a SAC-approved
apprenticeship program but became discouraged by what the other
group experienced.
Oregon has adopted a random selection pool process. This
means a contractor interested in hiring someone to put through
an apprenticeship program can only select the person at the top
of the list. They hire sight unseen.
Dick said that prior to 1999, Oregon operated on a method D
selection process approved by BAT. This is the traditional
hiring process. However, the addition of affirmative action
stipulations, which is already addressed by BAT, changed the
Oregon process. It created today's random selection pool
process that has failed to meet the needs of the contractors or
the students.
This presents an especially sticky problem for company
owners who cannot even place their children in a program with
their own company unless the timing is absolutely perfect.
The Oregon SAC requires applicants to have a high school
diploma or equivalent with the additional requirement for HVAC
only that they have a C in algebra.
SAC is being driven because it is the only way one can work
on public projects in Oregon, Washington, and California and
meet the prevailing wage requirement for apprentices. This
assumes you want to use apprentices and very few businesses,
regardless of size, can afford to work with only journeyman on
a job.
I see that my time is running out. I have experience on
Florida and Maryland. During questioning, if you would like to
hear about those states, I will be happy to share that with
you.
Thank you.
[Mr. Herzog's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you, Mr. Herzog, and thank you
especially for coming in and filling in at late notice. We
appreciate your remarks and hope as you are comfortable to have
some additional dialogue about some of the remarks that were
capably presented.
Our final witness today is Robert J. Krul. Mr. Krul is the
National Apprenticeship Coordinator for the United Union of
Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers and has held that
position since 1979. He is a 29-year member of Roofers Local 74
in Buffalo, New York, a graduate of their apprenticeship
program and is proud to say he was voted the outstanding
apprentice of his class. He was an instructor and coordinator
in his local union as well as a journeyman roofer and
waterproofer, serving in a foreman and estimator capacity for
several western New York roofing companies. He has served on
the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship, is currently a member
of the Building and Construction Trades Department
Apprenticeship Committee, is chairman of the Secretary of
Labor's Advisory Committee on Construction, Safety and Health,
and is also chairman of the Building and Construction Trades
Department Safety and Health Committee.
So it is with deep appreciation that we recognize Mr.
Robert Krul for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. KRUL, NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP
COORDINATOR, UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS, WATERPROOFERS AND ALLIED
WORKERS, WASHINGTON, DC, FOR THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES AFL-CIO
Mr. Krul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind
introduction and I would like to thank the members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to address an issue that the
14 affiliated unions of the Building and Construction Trades
Department feel is of utmost importance and those of us who are
products of this apprenticeship training system feel compelled
to address.
H.R. 1950, the Apprenticeship Enhancement Act, purports to
streamline the process of registering apprenticeship training
programs and increase the numbers of programs in this country.
In this period of extreme shortages of skilled workers in all
industries in this nation, and most particularly in the
construction industry, the purpose of the legislation at first
glance seems to address a pressing need. But no matter how
noble one thinks the purpose of the bill is, the unions of the
Building Trades and the organized segment of the apprenticeship
community have one salient point regarding its enactment: what
will be the price to the current standards of apprenticeship
training that have served this country well for at least 64
years?
Under the current system, the Department of Labor has
issued national guidelines defining apprenticeship training
criteria for numerous occupations and minimum standards
governing apprenticeship training that all those making
applications office review an apprenticeship program must abide
by. These standards include items like affirmative action
goals, health and safety training, classroom hours, curricula,
wage progression for apprentices, ratios, and otheraspects of
the program that ensure the welfare of the apprenticeship is protected
and, most importantly, that actual training will be conducted and the
apprentices will learn a trade or a craft. The system as it exists was
designed to make sure that everyone who submits an application for an
apprenticeship program adheres to a given set of national standards for
a particular industry or trade, protected the welfare of apprentices
being trained and ensured that the apprentice completed his or her
training by learning a craft or a trade.
H.R. 1950 will undermine the Department of Labor's Office
of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services and the
State Apprenticeship Councils. Under H.R. 1950, a contractor or
entity wishing to receive approval for a training program that
may not meet the standards established for their particular
industry or trade can play a waiting game and file continual
appeals in order to receive an apprenticeship training program
approval from the Secretary of Labor's office without being
held to the OATELS's or SACs' high standards.
Those established sets of standards have served the
apprenticeship community for over six decades. Are we ready to
say in this time of critical shortage of skilled workers in the
construction and other industries that we are ready to lower
the bar? Are we ready to say that construction workers need not
be completely skilled in what they do, that they only need
partial training or task training in order to work in this
industry?
If the answer to those questions in anyone's mind is yes,
then I hold out to you that the workers who eventually rebuild
our World Trade Center and the Pentagon need not be of top
quality or possess utmost skills. If mediocrity in the form of
so-so work that leads to future problems in building and
construction is our goal, then let us lower the bar of
excellence.
I have never understood why it is that many in this country
look down at construction work as just another occupation that
requires no marketable skills or standards by which to judge
those skills. Just think of the standards and skills that must
be measured in a host of occupations and vocations in our
everyday life. Lawyers must pass a bar exam in order to
practice law. Accountants must pass a standard certification to
receive their CPA license. And pilots must conform to a set of
established standards in their training before being allowed to
fly. And for the general public, all of us must pass tests and
demonstrate proficiencies before being issued a driver's
license.
For each of these examples, there are always individuals
who do not pass muster with the tests administered or the
standards established in a particular industry, craft or
profession. Is the answer to accommodate them by changing or
weakening the standards or tests? Of course not.
The same should be true of apprenticeship standards. Yes,
the standards are tough, but they are tough for the same
reasons that any industry standards are tough: to ensure that
men and women who enroll in these apprenticeship and training
programs will be properly trained to safely and competently
perform their work. Instead of lowering the bar, we should be
committed to making sure that the standards of apprenticeship
that have served us so well over the last six decades are never
weakened and, in fact, they should be strengthened and
protected.
I understand the frustration of those who come before you
today and relate that they have experienced difficulty in
registering what they feel is a bona fide apprenticeship
training program that meets the required standards. I am not
here to attempt to convince you that this system is never in
need of repair or adjustment. But I would hope that conjecture,
anecdotes and what seems to be a few minor administrative
infractions will not be the catalyst for amending the National
Apprenticeship Act of 1937.
The committee should look to the Federal Committee on
Registered Apprenticeship for guidance on how to address the
issues raised by H.R. 1950 and its proponents. In fact, the
FCRA has been working for the past two years on the very area
of concern addressed by H.R. 1950.
I see my time is up and I just would like to sum up by
saying that I and my colleagues in the Building Trades from
both labor and management urge the subcommittee to look to
those experts in the apprenticeship community for any remedies
that will be done so that the original purpose and intent of
the Fitzgerald Act to safeguard the welfare of apprentices is
the primary concern that we look at.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
[Mr. Krul's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Pence. Thank you, Mr. Krul, and thank you to all
of our witnesses today.
The chair will entertain a few questions to our witnesses
and then we will recognize our ranking member, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Illinois for any
questions or comments that they might have.
Beginning with Mr. Dunham, I am intrigued by the fact that
you have been involved in union and non-union apprenticeship
programs, which seems in some part of this to be a fault line
of this debate, and you have been involved in programs that
have been approved under the National Apprenticeship Act. Do
you believe that union and non-union registered apprenticeship
programs result in graduating skilled craftsmen as a general
rule?
Mr. Dunham. Yes, I do. In our case, the standards that we
are using for the open shop programs are models, the mirrors,
of the union programs under the requirement that the programs
have to parallel each other. So the standards that we use and
the education processes throughout it are the same and we have
had no major objection with that.
I think there should probably be some standardization.
Carpenters are carpenters, operators are operators. The work
processes are much the same.
The difficulty we have is just simply getting the program
considered by the State Apprenticeship Council in the first
place and that is what we think the whole issue is with H.R.
1950.
Chairman Pence. One follow-up question, Mr. Dunham.
You referred in your remarks to past efforts to update the
apprenticeship system with new ideas. I know Mr. Bonk laid out
a few ideas and Mr. Krul also referred to the debate over how
we improve the system. I wondered if you might elaborate
briefly on how outside of H.R. 1950 we might consider improving
the system that would raise the level and the quality of our
apprenticeship workforce?
Mr. Dunham. Mr. Chairman, the issues Mr. Bonk raised are
certainly valid ones, perhaps maybe slightly apart from what
the intent of this bill is, to simply get access to the
program. We certainly agree with the issues of reciprocity, the
issues of training, some of the others. We listed those in our
written comments.
But the major problem is simply gaining access to the
process of registering a program in the first place. We do not
say the system needs to be broken, it just needs to be utilized
better.
Chairman Pence. And to Mr. Bonk, I appreciate both you and
Mr. Krul's hands-on experience, I am someone who believes that
the ability to perform a trade which is far beyond my talent
base is an awesome ability to observe and will probably be much
in evidence at those tragic sites in Manhattan and here in
Washington.
With that piece of admiration expressed to both of you, let
me ask you about how would you characterize the extent of this
problem?
We have heard a wide range of views among the testimony
today, some saying this is a very acute problem with regard to
the approval process. I know that some thought that non-union
contractors in Delaware have chosen not even to apply for
approval of apprenticeship programs.
How would you characterize the depth of this problem? Are
these isolated instances or is this a pattern, both in your
home jurisdiction and around the country?
Mr. Bonk. Having served on the national board of ABC, I was
in frequent meetings with contractors all over the United
States and it is a country-wide problem, that all ABC
contractors are looking for is a chance to get out of the
batter's box up to the plate. If they strike out, they strike
out. If they get a hit, they get a hit, but we cannot even get
to the batter's box right now.
No one is trying to put the standards aside or minimize the
standards. All we want is a chance to stand at the plate.
In Delaware, we have a State Apprenticeship Council. It is
comprised of members of the Department of Labor, members of the
business community and members of organized labor. However,
some of the members of the business community are also owners
of organized labor contracting companies, so nothing ever gets
through the State Apprenticeship Council in Delaware. So the
curriculum is poor--and it is not to demean the people in the
Department of Labor, they are well intentioned, good, hard
working people--the curriculum is outdated, the teaching
methods are outdated. We are using systems that were brought
about 50 years ago. We are ignoring CD-ROMs, the Internet. We
are ignoring the ability to bring someone in and test them.
If you have someone that has been in the trade for 20
years, why not test them? Why subject that person to a first
year apprenticeship program? He is not going to want to do
that. Or she is not going to want to do it. Why not recognize
their skill in that field?
We do it at the college and university level, we let people
test out of a class there. Why not do it in the apprenticeship
program? But we are always at loggerheads because of these
State Apprenticeship Councils.
Once again, it is not meant to reduce the standards, just
give us a shot at the plate.
Chairman Pence. Mr. Herzog, it is my understanding that
State Apprenticeship Councils are supposed to follow federal
regulations. Now, I also understand that federal regulations do
not permit the establishment of new apprenticeship programs
even though an apprenticeship program of that nature and in
that craft currently exist in the state. Is that something that
we ought to address specifically in terms of--should we make
federal regulations explicit that an SAC cannot prohibit the
establishment of a new program simply because there is already
a program in that craft?
Mr. Herzog. Definitely. And this is one of the problems
that they faced in Oregon. They also had that same pattern in
Florida. And this is local requirements. All the state SACs
have to do is meet minimum federal standards, which is very
true for a lot of federal programs given to the states. The
states can then build upon these as long as they are meeting
the federal standards.
But if you are in a situation--and, actually, there is a
lawsuit in California where they had approved a program for
Sacramento, and they wanted to have satellite programs for the
rest of the state. California is rather a large state so they
tried it, but the union came in and sued them and now there is
a possibility they are going to lose everything because it is
such a mess.
In Washington State, there is another example. The 9th
District Court ruled that the state had to provide parallel
non-union programs. In effect, the SAC is undergirding that
decision by creating new regulations that make it extremely
difficult for the non-union programs to get started.
So if you want to have enough workers, if that is the goal,
you have to make these programs available so that they are
fairly convenient, so apprentices do not have to travel 200
miles to get to a program, and they have to be cost effective
so apprentices and employers can afford it.
Chairman Pence. And, Mr. Krul, you said, I think, that the
number one point has to do with maintaining the current
standards among these apprenticeship programs. And I ask this
very sincerely, as someone who obviously has forgotten more
today about these programs than I have yet learned, how
specifically in your mind does H.R. 1950 erode the standards
that currently exist in the law, at least the last 20 years?
How are the standards that you described eroded in any way
by simply creating a time table for a yes or no decision?
Mr. Krul. Well, Congressman, it is a fair question and, as
I said in my remarks, we are not here to tell you that the
system is not in need of repair or adjustment. We would much
rather see the Federal Committee on Registered Apprenticeship
make suggestions.
To answer your immediate question, I would repeat what
Congressman Brady had said. The way this bill is structured, it
builds in an appeals process that seems to be an endless
process that would allow a contractor or an entity to merely
stand in line and wait for the time limitations to run out.
A State Apprenticeship Council with all the stories we are
hearing from the folks that are testifying at the table and
Congressman Wicker, the states have the right to state if
deficiencies exist in standards that are being put forward.
Now, there seems to be a time table debate, that it takes
too long. And if there have been years, then obviously
something is wrong and it needs to be fixed, if it takes years
to get an apprenticeship program looked at, or there should be
at least an oversight by some other entity. And we think that
back in 1990, the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training
proposed rules to address this in program registration, denials
and deregistration, that it would come back through the
Department of Labor.
But understanding the way these State Apprenticeship
Councils work, that they meet quarterly, there should not be
any big reason for people to get upset that it is 90 days in
between the review of the program. If that program was reviewed
and denied because it did not meet standards existing for a
particular industry, then those standards need to be brought
up.
I mean, there are non-union programs being--I hate to bring
that debate up, but there are non-union programs being
registered, apprenticeship programs being registered, in this
country. It is not like it is--in fact, what I am looking at
from those who submitted testimony, the non-union programs are
registered in far greater numbers than union programs are. But
the inverse relationship that exists is that the preponderance
of registered apprentices who graduate from the programs come
from that minority union sector.
So we are looking at--if that many registered programs are
in the non-union sector, could it be that the states are
exercising states' rights in saying that we will not let a
program come into our particular borders that is less than what
is established for an industry or trade?
If there are some egregious--and I am sure that we have
zealots, some of them my union brothers and sisters, I am
sure--then there ought to be oversight capabilities. But I do
not think amending the National Apprenticeship Act is the way
that the apprenticeship system ought to be looked at to have
those adjustments made and repairs made to it.
I think those who have equity in this system, both in the
organized and unorganized sectors, sit on the Federal Committee
on Registered Apprenticeship, there are folks there from the
private and the public sector, and I think those experts would
better be able to tell this body if legislation is needed or if
it could be done through Part 29 of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, which currently exists for the regulation
of apprenticeship programs.
Chairman Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Brady?
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for testifying today. We appreciate you being here.
My question would be for Mr. Bonk.
Your program has apprentices pay a fee of $700 to $1000 to
participate in that program. Is that correct? And how do they
pay that?
Mr. Bonk. I am not aware of any apprentice paying for their
education.
Mr. Brady. I understand that to join the apprenticeship
program that there is a fee for that.
Mr. Bonk. That is not true.
Mr. Brady. Not at all?
Mr. Bonk. I am not aware of any ABC chapter or member that
charges for their apprentices. They are usually borne by the
company. I have registered apprentices in the State of Maryland
that I pay the ABC chapter there for their training.
Mr. Brady. You pay for the apprentices' training?
Mr. Bonk. Yes.
Mr. Brady. What happens in the second year through lack of
work, an apprentice put two years in and he now longer has no
work? Do they get laid off and they just go about the wayside?
Do you keep track of them? I mean, do you try to bring them
back a year later when there is work? Are they a member or what
happens?
Mr. Bonk. I do not recall the last person that I laid off.
It must have been at least ten years ago, Congressman.
Mr. Brady. That is good when we are booming, but right now
we are not booming. And if we stop booming, what would happen?
I mean, somebody had to get laid off somewhere, a single
employer had to lay people off. What happens to those
apprentices?
Mr. Bonk. Well, part of the problem is the lack of
portability. In construction, you have some training in a vo
tech arena, different levels of training once you get out, and
there is no portability with the thing, so that someone after
two years may get lost in the backwash.
What is happening now with the National Center for
Construction Education and Research, as you take these
programs, you actually acquire a transcript so that whether you
are in Wilmington, Delaware or Spokane, Washington, you can
take this transcript and once again catch up on your education.
Mr. Brady. But to catch up on your education, you have to
have a job with somebody, correct?
Mr. Bonk. With the great demand for construction workers in
this country, I do not see any construction workers looking for
a job.
Mr. Brady. Well, the point I am making is when there are,
and we are in a boom right now, there is no question about it,
but there are times when we do have a lack of work. And the
difference between the programs that I see, because I have been
involved in them and I have had a lack of work, is that in a
union program they keep you. They keep you and they keep you
for as long as you keep your card up and they will find work
for you. And we have a mandate on so many employees, so many
journeymen, they must have apprentices. And I am wondering
whether you have that same thing.
Mr. Bonk. I do not feel there is any difference in the open
shop sector. January, February, March were very difficult
months for my company. I came out of pocket to get work for my
people. Once again, I have not laid someone off in ten years.
Mr. Brady. Yes, but that is you. There are other people out
there that do lay people off.
Mr. Bonk. Well, I do not know that my story is that
different than the rest of the industry.
Mr. Brady. Well, I do. I mean, that is absolutely true,
there are people that lay people off. I know people that have
gotten laid off. I was just wanting to know what happens to
these apprentices that put two years or three years in on a
four-year program. I mean, in a union position, they have a
union card that they maintain their dues which are minimal and
they even make them lower when they are not working, when they
are out of work, and they stay for life. I mean, you could come
back 10, 15 years and go back into the trade. And I was just
trying to find the distinction.
Mr. Bonk. I have hired people that have completed one year,
two years, three years at other companies and they have
completed their apprenticeship programs within my company.
Mr. Brady. Okay.
Mr. Krul, how do you see this bill addressing the problems
in the current shortage of the skilled workers?
Mr. Krul. I hate to keep falling back on my standards
crutch. I do not see this bill addressing skills. It will
address skills shortage, it will address shortages in the
construction industry. Will it address skilled worker
shortages? I have my doubts. I have my doubts.
I am listening to the laments of the folks here at the
table and issues that we disagree on. Portability and
reciprocity, I do not think those are the kinds of things
personally that the apprenticeship system ought to entertain.
However, I would defer to experts in the field.
And I do think, I would like to repeat, that the question
that you just asked me would be best answered by those folks
sitting on the Federal Committee on Registered Apprenticeship
who have dealt with these issues before and, in fact, are
dealing with this very issue that H.R. 1950 addresses right now
and would like to address the issue of the critical skill
shortages.
There are no silver bullets, no magic solutions to the
skilled worker shortages in this country. But I do not believe
H.R. 1950 addresses that, sir.
Mr. Brady. How will the overall quality of apprenticeship
programs be affected under H.R. 1950 if it is enacted?
Mr. Krul. If it is enacted, the quality of those people, if
substandard programs, programs that undermine the standards
that are currently existing for an apprenticeship program are
allowed to go into place, for instance, if wage progressions
are not equal, if wages and fringe benefit levels are not
equal, there is a huge bidding advantage for a contractor in
the construction industry who would register a program, pay his
people lesser monies than someone in the organized sector would
be doing, and to come in and underbid fair contractors in a
union setting.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I thank all of you.
Chairman Pence. The chair recognizes Mr. Phelps of Illinois
for any questions or comments of our panel.
Mr. Phelps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for calling this hearing and examining a very important piece
of legislation and the panel members for testifying. Very
enlightening.
What protection, Mr. Bonk, do you think an apprentice
worker would have under an employer-sponsored apprenticeship
program if after two years they fire them, an employee, to hire
another apprentice to keep the costs down, so people maybe are
not being laid off, but have you hired people fired?
Mr. Bonk. We have fired people, not--you know, there has to
be a reason to fire someone or it will not stand up in court.
We do not just arbitrarily go out and fire someone.
Mr. Phelps. No, I am not indicating that. But those that--I
guess if the concerns of labor are not addressed, one of the
things that they evidently are concerned about would be the
competition of what eventually comes to wages, which has all
kinds of ramifications, what Mr. Krul says, from the
competition of bids, how much skill there is involved in those
because of lower costs versus those that had to pay more to get
more skilled. Do we have an even playing field with everything
that is proposed in H.R. 1950?
Mr. Bonk. No, I do not believe we have an even playing
field. I think you will find more situations where journeymen
are less likely to find work in the organized labor section, in
a closed shop, than in an open shop sector, because in order to
get a good average wage on a job, you are going to find union
contractors want a lot of apprentices to get the average wage
down. However, once they reach journeyman status, I think
statistically it has been proven that they are going to sit in
the hall. There is not as much demand for the journeymen as
there is for the apprentice because of the reduced wage.
That is not the situation in the open shop arena. If I am
going to spend all this time and effort on a person, I want to
retain them. I think there is more of an affinity towards the
company in the open shop arena. There is an allegiance there. I
take care of my people. And I think you will find they are more
likely to stay with me. I do not send them back to the hall, I
give them the opportunity to work within other trades.
The construction industry does not work in a vacuum. If I
start doing shoddy work, I am not going to be out there. If my
employees perform poorly, people are not going to utilize me.
Architects look at our work. Engineers look at our work.
License and inspections people look at our work. I cannot do
shoddy work. So the idea that we can put in a poor
apprenticeship program and do shoddy work to keep the costs
down, I am not going to survive in a free market system.
Mr. Phelps. Mr. Herzog or Krul, would you respond to that
as far as the effect on the journeyman, the point he made? Do
you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Herzog. Fortunately, we do not have that problem. Our
members cannot find enough workers to do the work that they
have. And this situation has been going on for many years.
Mr. Phelps. Why is that, you think?
Mr. Herzog. Because there is a shortage of people that want
to get into these quote blue collar trades because it is not
very sexy. Students can get work in the computer industry. We
have talked with the BAT people here, they have been very
helpful and understand this situation. You cannot attract the
kids into these programs. The high school counselors are
sending them elsewhere. Our people are actually going down to
the junior high level trying to convince students that this is
a possible trade one can get into if you are not college bound.
Mr. Phelps. So we have this factor with the 25-to-40-year
olds' decreasing interest in the industry.
Mr. Herzog. Getting them at 18, getting high school
graduates to go into this industry. We would love to have a lot
more people.
Mr. Phelps. So is that--maybe you would say let the market
work without too much intervention or influence from the
government? Does that not mean, then, that that would have an
effect on wages, trying to recruit in shortage areas?
Mr. Herzog. Yes. Obviously, what wages one pays determines
how competitive you are in competing against others, whether
union or non-union. You can only afford to pay a certain amount
of money. The market determines what the rates are, except
prevailing wages where everybody pays the same.
Mr. Phelps. Mr. Krul, did you have a response?
Mr. Krul. I do not mean to get into colloquy here, but I
could not think of a quicker way for a union contractor to go
into Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy than to put all apprentices out
on a job and not use his most skilled manpower in the form of
his journeyman and top estimators.
The fact is that all contractors in the organized sector,
and I can only speak for the organized sector, that is where my
experience is, they understand under the collective bargaining
process that they are required to hire apprentices in the ratio
that the standards of the program are registered under. There
would certainly be no contractor who would ever consider going
beyond those ratios in some quote-unquote cost saving measure
because the apprentices are being paid a portion of the
journeyman's rate. The skill level is not there for an
apprentice. He or she is still learning. And when you are on a
big outage on a power plant or if you are going through a
decommissioning a nuclear plant, you are not going to put
apprentices in there. You are going to have your top people
doing that.
Mr. Phelps. Mr. Dunham, do you have a response?
Mr. Dunham. Many of the public work contracts in the State
of Washington now have a requirement in them for a certain
percentage of apprentices and whether it is open shop or union
contractors bidding on that, that is how many apprentices will
be on the job. So it is really not that much of an issue.
The issue, too, for the contractor is, whether they are
union or open shop, is that they want to do a quality job and
be able to stay in business and continue to do work in the
future and they are not going to put unskilled, untrained
people on the job that would affect their ability to do that.
The standards in our situation, standards that the
apprentices adhere to, are virtually the same for both the
union and open shop segment. Our issue is just one of simply
getting the open shop programs registered in the first place.
Mr. Phelps. One last question for any of you to respond or
all of you.
One of the main reasons expressed for the need for this
bill is to streamline the application process. How do time
limits on the application approval streamline the process in
your opinions?
Mr. Bonk. I think no matter what industry you are in, if
you have a time limit you are more apt to perform. I always
laugh at contractors at bid meetings, the first question is can
we get an extension on the time to bid. And it does not matter
how much time you have, you are going to do it at the end, so
if there is some pressure at some point in time to get this
done, it will get done. If there is no pressure to come up with
an answer, whether it be positive or negative, it is just human
nature to let it slide.
Mr. Phelps. Okay. So the time table provides pressure, in
your opinion, to move it right along.
Mr. Bonk. In my opinion, yes.
Mr. Krul. Congressman, I would just repeat what I said
before. It is my understanding, and I would stand to be
corrected, that most State Apprenticeship Councils, those
members, serve in a voluntary capacity and meet quarterly, so
any time limit, for instance, the 90 days proposed in this
bill, would put pressure on. If the review happens 90 days--an
apprenticeship program is submitted and it is found to be
deficient and that State Apprenticeship Council will not meet
again for 90 days, I do not know how this bill's time table and
the time table of the State Apprenticeship Council--who is
going to authorize or enforce that they meet sooner in order to
accommodate that time table?
Mr. Phelps. Mr. Bonk, what do you say to that?
Mr. Bonk. I do not feel the 90 days is an issue. I think 20
years is an issue.
Mr. Krul. I would agree.
Mr. Phelps. Twenty years? I missed something.
Mr. Bonk. The ABC Washington chapter waited 20 years for an
answer.
Mr. Phelps. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Bonk. I feel that if we are being given due process, if
someone is legitimately looking at the thing, that is fine. The
30 days, 90 days, six months, I think it is all irrelevant. I
do not feel they are being given an honest----
Mr. Phelps. Except the pressure time table, you said. That
is relevant.
Mr. Bonk. The 90 days is relevant. I do not know that these
apprentice councils only meet quarterly. I do not think that is
the issue. The real issue is get someone to look at it. Let us
get out of the batter's box up to the plate. If we strike out,
we strike out.
Mr. Herzog. We have a perfect example for you. In Florida,
our chapter executive applied for a program. She was on the
SAC, she knew the people, she made her application. After four
to six months not hearing anything, she called the chairman of
the SAC and raised Cain. She asked what is going on, why have I
not heard? And immediately thereafter, the program was
approved.
If she did not know anybody there, if she was just out
there like everyone else, she would still be waiting. And if
you have a problem on the time limit, determine it based on
when you start the clock. If a SAC does not meet less than
quarterly, and start the clock at that first quarterly meeting.
But you have to make it known to everybody applying for the
program when that clock is going to start.
So, if I am applying for a program and the SAC met, say,
two weeks ago and then I apply, I will know ahead of time that
there is not going to be any action at least for two and a half
months because they are not meeting.
The other problem they have in Florida is they cut their
budget to $1.3 million to oversee 347 programs. They lost their
specialist and now they put the program under the unemployment
department. So that is another problem, the funding of these
programs is probably why there is the slowdown in response.
Mr. Phelps. So do you think these people are properly
communicated with, with the quarter timing, to understand where
they are?
Mr. Herzog. It is a certainty. Yes. You have to know what
the game plan is. You have to know when to expect a response so
that you are not sitting on the phone and telling people who
have signed up to become apprentices, yes, maybe they will hear
something next week, when it could be months before you know
anything.
Mr. Dunham. Mr. Congressman, in the State of Washington,
the staff of the SAC obviously goes to work every day and works
on that and has correspondence and discussion with the council
members on a very regular basis. The quarterly meetings that
are conducted by the SAC in some instances are formal occasions
to enroll for the public record actions taken by that group,
but they obviously do not work in a vacuum, the work is done
constantly, and that is why I think the 90 days is probably a
reasonable way to say that you should take some positive action
toward us.
Any of us who have a program, if we found some deficiency
in our standards, which we rarely would because they model the
union programs that have been in existence for years, we could
take care of that and the issue of 90 days would not be a major
issue.
Mr. Phelps. So if I hear you all right, even though you
might differ on the time table process, you think that it is
necessary to have a time table.
Mr. Dunham. That is correct.
Mr. Phelps. And that whether it is 90 days, you think it is
irrelevant, you all think it is working as it is?
Mr. Krul. I would respectfully state, as I said in my
testimony, that rather than do this legislatively, I would
rather see this done through the CFR. And I would, if I could,
leave with your staff a copy of that 1990 proposal that never
went anywhere that did give the then Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training Director within 30 days the right to review a
denial of a program.
Mr. Phelps. Thank you. That would be very valuable.
Anybody else have anything to add?
Mr. Bonk. I think one of the most basic management premises
is what gets measured gets done. Right now, there is no
measurement. Put some kind of measurement in and it will get
done.
Mr. Herzog. I might add, too, that a lot of our chapters
just went with the BAT process and they said that the
difference is like night and day. It has been a pleasant
experience, they have been very helpful.
Mr. Phelps. The BAT process?
Mr. Herzog. The BAT process. They understand----
Mr. Phelps. So maybe that would be a model?
Mr. Herzog. They do not have a time line. It is just that
they are more efficient and maybe it is because they have more
people. I do not know.
Mr. Phelps. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Pence. Mr. Brady, did you have any other follow-up
questions?
Mr. Brady. Just an observation. The DOL does not keep
statistics, I do not believe, on the amount of complaints. I
think that we should probably look at that and maybe try to
compile what amount of complaints there really are and how
widespread it is before we consider legislation. I mean, we do
not know that.
And I do not know whether or not--I am not trying to be an
obstructionist--I do not know whether or not we can even get
that information, but I think in due diligence we should try to
and find out if it is two complaints from this part of the
state and maybe just three from here, maybe Mr. Bonk has a
legitimate complaint from just his own area, but if we can just
see where it is at instead of putting in broadbased legislation
for the United States of America for apprentices, we should
probably try in due diligence to get those statistics.
Chairman Pence. I want to thank all of those who presented
testimony today and especially thank my colleagues, the ranking
member, Mr. Brady from Pennsylvania, and Mr. Phelps from
Illinois for joining us.
I especially want to thank the public spirited nature of
all of your comments. This is an issue that affects today
440,000 some odd families. It is our hope that we could proceed
in a positive way so that we could have nearly a million people
to meet the market need that seems inarguable in the coming
years.
I just would hope that we would go forward with the idea
that whatever we do that one principle would come shining out
and that would be that the law that is on the books is enforced
and that if we need to make changes in that law or in the way
that it is interpreted through regulation, it is my hope that
our subcommittee would be a part of that discussion, but I
remain a strong advocate of H.R. 1950 inasmuch as it simply
calls for a streamlining and application of existing standards
and I also would endorse the principle that performance
measured is performance enhanced.
One clarification, for the record, according to my
understanding, the time clock for the 90 days begins after the
initial SAC meeting and so it would accommodate the quarterly
schedule that many states do employ in their meeting, thereby
giving as much as a six-month initial window with another 30-
day extension on top of that in reality.
That being said, again, thank you to our witnesses and to
my colleagues. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6009A.051