[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF WORK: ENSURING
WORKERS ARE COMPETITIVE IN A
RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 18, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-483 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia Van Taylor, Texas
Kim Schrier, Washington Steve Watkins, Kansas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Ron Wright, Texas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Andy Levin, Michigan* Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania,
Mark Takano, California Ranking Member
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Andy Levin, Michigan Elise Stefanik, New York
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Jim Banks, Indiana
David Trone, Maryland Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susie Lee, Nevada James Comer, Kentucky
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts Ben Cline, Virginia
Joaquin Castro, Texas Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Steve C. Watkins, Jr., Kansas
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania
Northern Mariana Islands Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Donald Norcross, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 18, 2019................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Davis, Hon. Susan A., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Investment......................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Smucker, Hon. Lloyd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Investment......................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Gattman, Ms. Nova, Deputy Director for External Affairs,
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board,
Olympia, WA................................................ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Harris, Mr. Seth D., J.D., Visiting Professor, Cornell
Institute for Public Affairs, SE, Suite 310, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Markell, Mr. Brad, Executive Director, AFL-CIO Working for
America Institute, Washington, D.C......................... 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Paretti, Mr. James A., Jr., Shareholder, Littler Mendelson
P.C., Treasurer, Emma Coalition Washington, D.C............ 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Additional Submissions:
Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington:
Report: Domestic Workers Bill: A Model for Tomorrow's
Workforce.............................................. 82
Link: Future of Work Task Force 2019 Policy Report....... 99
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
Sec. 4013 Extending Federal Pell Grant Eligibility of
Certain Short-Term Programs............................ 102
THE FUTURE OF WORK: ENSURING
WORKERS ARE COMPETITIVE IN A
RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMY
----------
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Higher Education
and Workforce Investment,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m. p.m.,
in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan Davis
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis, Courtney, Takano, Jayapal,
Harder, Levin, Omar, Trone, Lee, Bonamici, Adams, Norcross,
Scott (ex officio), Smucker, Guthrie, Grothman, Stefanik,
Banks, Walker, Comer, Watkins, Meuser, and Foxx (ex officio).
Staff Present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel, Health and
Labor; Emma Eatman, Press Assistant; Eli Hovland, Staff
Assistant; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff
Director; Katie McClelland, Professional Staff; Richard Miller,
Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Office Aide; Banyon
Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology; Rachel West,
Senior Economic Policy Advisor; Courtney Butcher, Minority
Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Akash Chougule,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Dean Johnson, Minority
Staff Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education
and Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director
of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications
Director; Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Chance
Russell, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg,
Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
Chairwoman Davis. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order.
We want to welcome everyone this morning. Thank you so much
for being here.
I note that a quorum is present.
The committee is meeting today for the last hearing of the
decade to receive testimony on The Future of Work: Ensuring
Workers are Competitive in a Rapidly Changing Economy. Really
important work that we are doing and, you know, it is telling
that here we are trying to look into the future but dealing
today with this issue.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
limited to the chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
hear from our witnesses sooner and provide all members with
adequate time to ask questions.
I want to recognize myself now for the purpose of making an
opening statement.
We are gathered today for the committee's second of three
``future of work'' hearings. These hearings provide committee
members the opportunity to hear from experts and stakeholders
and discuss how to provide all workers access to the tools,
support, and protections needed to thrive in today's rapidly
changing economy.
Today, we will discuss Congress' responsibility to address
worker displacement by expanding access to lifelong learning
and ensuring that American workers can remain competitive as
the nature of work changes.
There are a wide range of factors that cause workers to
become displaced. Recessions, trade, climate change, automation
are just some of the reasons why Americans become disconnected
from their jobs, their industries, or their workforce. Whatever
that cause may be, nearly all displaced workers and their
families face a common set of challenges. Financial hardship,
poor health, and reduced life expectancy are common
consequences for all displaced workers.
Workers who lose their jobs can also suffer lower and less
stable long-term earnings and may become trapped in a cycle of
low-wage, low-mobility jobs. Today, some 53 million workers age
18 to 64, or 44 percent of the workforce, have median annual
earnings of $17,950 per year. And research shows that over half
of these workers will remain in this low-wage bracket even when
they transition to another job.
Given the severe consequences of worker displacement, you
might assume that we have a robust, integrated, and well-funded
system to help workers build their skills and get back into the
workforce, but, unfortunately, you would be wrong.
Although worker displacement is a familiar and ongoing
challenge, our current policy response consists of a thin
patchwork of programs and services that are poorly integrated
and increasingly underfunded.
Federal investments in workforce training and employment
programs have fallen behind other countries, and they continue
to decline. We spend only about 0.1 percent of our GDP on
workforce development programs, compared to an average of 0.6
percent in our peer industrialized nations. And while the U.S.
labor force has grown by roughly half over the past four
decades, Federal investment in workforce development has fallen
by two-thirds.
At the same time, employers' investment in workforce
training has also decreased. From 1996 to 2008, the percentage
of workers receiving employer-sponsored training fell by 42
percent. Let me say that again. The percentage of workers
receiving--this is from 1996 to 2008--the percentage of workers
receiving employer-sponsored training fell by 42 percent. That
is a staggering number to remember.
Lower skilled workers who could benefit the most from
training often receive the least, as employers direct most
investment toward workers who already hold high-skilled and
managerial positions.
Adequate investment is not the only challenge. The existing
patchwork of policies and programs makes it difficult for
displaced workers to access the resources that they need.
Under the current system, eligibility for benefits and
services is geared toward workers who have suffered only
specific causes of displacement. Workers affected by trade
receive the most support than others, and they would probably
tell you that is also not adequate. The burden generally falls
on the worker to prove the cause of their displacement and then
find which programs or services they are eligible to receive.
As automation and other emerging trends continue to disrupt
our economy in new ways, we must reshape workforce programs to
help all workers at risk of displacement secure in-demand
skills. Reskilling alone is insufficient to ensure workers can
remain competitive. We must explore policies to proactively
prevent displacement, enhance worker supports like career
guidance, and promote lifelong learning.
Today, our witnesses will also help us discuss policies
Congress could pass to ensure workers threatened by
displacement are not left to fend for themselves. We know, for
example, that we must substantially increase Federal
investments in workforce development. And, in fact, the Council
of Economic Advisers reported that the U.S. would have to spend
$80.4 billion more per year to match the average spending on
workforce programs by our peer industrialized countries
relative to GDP.
We also must make it easier for workers to locate the
resources to transition between jobs or build new skills.
Improving data collection methods and increasing credential
transparency in our workforce system would be one good example,
I think, that would match job seekers with employers, inform
career navigation services, and help workers find sustainable
career pathways.
We must build from what we know works, like Trade
Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training, or
TAACCCT grants, and expand career navigation supports.
And finally, Congress must ensure that resources for
lifelong learning programs, which help workers access education
and training opportunities, can be accessed by all workers and
in all parts of the country.
While there is a cost to these actions, inaction would come
at a far greater cost to working families. Well-prepared
workers are better equipped to grow our economy and contribute
to their communities. The bottom line is clear. Congress must
invest in a system that brings workforce systems, employers,
labor, and educators together to ensure the success of workers
in the future.
I want to thank all of you again, thank our witnesses for
being here.
And I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smucker, for an
opening statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Investment
We are gathered today for the Committee's second of three ``future
of work'' hearings. These hearings provide Committee Members the
opportunity to hear from experts and stakeholders and discuss how to
provide all workers access to the tools, support, and protections
needed to thrive in today's rapidly changing economy.
Today, we will discuss Congress's responsibility to address worker
displacement by expanding access to lifelong learning, and ensuring
that American workers can remain competitive as the nature of work
changes.
There are a wide range of factors that cause workers to become
displaced. Recessions, trade, climate change, and automation are just
some of the reasons why Americans become disconnected from their jobs,
their industries, or the workforce.
Whatever the cause, nearly all displaced workers and their families
face a common set of challenges. Financial hardship, poorer health, and
reduced life expectancy are common consequences for all displaced
workers.
Workers who lose their jobs can also suffer lower and less stable
long-term earnings, and may become trapped in a cycle of low-wage, low-
mobility jobs. Today, some 53 million workers age 18 to 64 - or 44
percent of the workforce - have median annual earnings of $17,950 per
year. And research shows that over half of these workers will remain in
this low wage bracket even when they transition to another job.
Given the severe consequences of worker displacement, you might
assume we have a robust, integrated, and well- funded system to help
workers build their skills and get back into the workforce.
Unfortunately, you would be wrong.
Although worker displacement is a familiar and ongoing challenge,
our current policy response consists of a thin patchwork of programs
and services that are poorly integrated and increasingly underfunded.
Federal investments in workforce training and employment programs
have fallen behind other countries and continue to decline. We spend
only about 0.1 percent of our GDP on workforce development programs,
compared to an average of 0.6 percent in our peer industrialized
nations. And while the U.S. labor force has grown by roughly half over
the past four decades, federal investment in workforce development has
fallen by two-thirds.
At the same time, employers' investment in workforce training has
also decreased. From 1996 to 2008, the percentage of workers receiving
employer-sponsored training fell by 42 percent. Lower-skill workers who
could benefit the most from training often receive the least, as
employers direct most investment toward workers who already hold high-
skilled and managerial positions.
Adequate investment is not the only challenge. The existing
patchwork of policies and programs makes it difficult for displaced
workers to access the resources they need.
Under the current system, eligibility for benefits and services is
geared towards workers who've suffered only specific causes of
displacement - workers affected by trade receive the most support that
others. The burden generally falls on the worker to ``prove'' the cause
of their displacement and then find which programs or services they're
eligible to receive.
As automation and other emerging trends continue to disrupt our
economy in new ways, we must reshape workforce programs to help all
workers at risk of displacement secure in-demand skills.
Reskilling alone is insufficient to ensure workers can remain
competitive. We must explore policies to proactively prevent
displacement, enhance worker supports like career guidance, and promote
lifelong learning.
Today, our witnesses will also help us discuss policies Congress
could pass to ensure workers threatened by displacement are not left to
fend for themselves.
We know, for example, that we must substantially increase federal
investments in workforce development. In fact, the Council of Economic
Advisers reported that the U.S. would have to spend $80.4 billion more
per year to match the average spending on workforce programs by our
peer industrialized countries relative to GDP.
We also must make it easier for workers to locate the resources to
transition between jobs or build new skills. Improving data collection
methods and increasing credential transparency in our workforce system,
for example, would better match job seekers with employers, inform
career navigation services, and help workers find sustainable career
pathways.
We must build from what we know works, like Trade Adjustment
Assistance Community College and Career Training, or TACT grants, and
expanded career navigation supports.
Finally, Congress must ensure that resources for lifelong learning
programs, which help workers access education and training
opportunities, can be accessed by all workers, and in all parts of the
country.
While there is a cost to these actions, inaction would come at far
greater cost to working families. Well-prepared workers are better
equipped to grow our economy and contribute to their communities. The
bottom line is clear: Congress must invest in a system that brings
workforce systems, employers, labor, and educators together to ensure
the success of workers in the future.
Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being with us today. I now
yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smucker, for an opening statement.
______
Mr. Smucker. Thank you for yielding.
Today, we are here to discuss the future of work and how
Federal policies and Federal programs can help to ensure that
workers can remain competitive in a rapidly changing economy.
There is a lot of good news here. American workers are
benefiting from a strong economy ushered in by Republican pro-
growth policies. Wages are on the rise. Jobs are being created,
and unemployment is at a 50-year low.
Thanks to this thriving economy, displacement rates are
lower than they have been in years. Numbers from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics illustrate that job separations today are
largely voluntary. However, displacement continues to occur,
and it will be unavoidable as technology evolves and the skills
needed to compete in the labor market change.
While we must acknowledge the problems associated with
displacement and work to address them, our first step must be
to help workers to acquire the skills and knowledge they need
to get off the sidelines and into one of the millions of jobs
that are open today across the Nation.
According to a 2018 survey of U.S. employers, nearly half
of all job creators struggled to hire employees with the right
skills for the job, which has led to 7 million unfilled
positions throughout the country and a substantial skills gap
that plagues our workforce.
Earlier this year, this committee heard from Daniel Pianko,
co-founder and managing director of University Ventures, a
company working to transform the pathway from higher education
to employment. Pianko said in his testimony: ``The skills gap
is exacting a heavy toll on American families and institutions.
It is impeding economic growth, promoting generational
inequity, jeopardizing the American Dream, and creating real
anxiety about the future of work.''
Fortunately, we know that skills-based education, like
apprenticeships, are proven to help address the growing skills
gap that we currently face. That is why my Republican
colleagues and I have taken steps to advance work-based
learning opportunities, including further integrating our
education and workforce development systems, so that we can
provide workers with the skills necessary to fill those
millions of unfilled jobs. These efforts will aid all workers,
including displaced workers.
Thanks to the Trump administration, the Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion is also working on solving the issues
that put up barriers to entry and bureaucratic red tape for
those who wish to develop apprenticeship programs.
Specifically, the Task Force recommended giving businesses
greater flexibility in their apprenticeship programs to meet
the varying needs of different industries. After all, employers
know what skills their employees need best to excel in the
workplace.
We should build on these successes by advancing policies
that make it more attractive and easier to invest in workers.
Rather than promoting policies that burden businesses and drive
up costs, committee Republicans will continue to champion
reforms that expand opportunities for flexibility, innovation,
and entrepreneurship, to give workers and job seekers
opportunities to compete successfully in the 21st century
economy.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming today, and I look
forward to hearing from each of you.
[The statement of Mr. Smucker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lloyd Smucker, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Investment
Today, we are here to discuss the future of work and how we can
ensure workers are competitive in a rapidly changing economy.
Here's the good news. American workers are benefitting from a
strong economy ushered in by Republican pro-growth policies. Wages are
on the rise, jobs are being created, and unemployment is at a 50-year
low.
Thanks to this thriving economy, displacement rates are lower than
they have been in years. Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
illustrate that job separations today are largely voluntary.
However, displacement continues to occur and it will be unavoidable
as technology evolves and the skills needed to compete in the labor
market change.
While we must acknowledge the problems associated with displacement
and work to address them, our first step must be to provide workers
with the skills they need to get off the sidelines and into one of the
millions of jobs open today across the nation.
According to a 2018 survey of U.S. employers, nearly half of all
job creators struggle to hire employees with the right skills for the
job, which has led to seven million unfilled positions throughout the
country and a substantial skills gap that plagues our workforce.
Earlier this year this committee heard from Daniel Pianko, co-founder
and managing director of University Ventures, a company working to
transform the pathway from higher education to employment. Pianko said
in his testimony, `The skills gap is exacting a heavy toll on American
families and institutions. It is impeding economic growth, promoting
generational inequity, jeopardizing the American Dream, and creating
real anxiety about the future of work.'
Fortunately, we know that skills-based education, like
apprenticeships, are proven to help address the growing skills gap we
currently face.
That is why my Republican colleagues and I have taken steps to
advance work-based learning opportunities, including further
integrating our education and workforce development systems so we can
provide workers with the skills necessary to fill the millions of
unfilled jobs nationwide. These efforts will aid all workers, including
displaced workers.
Thanks to the Trump administration, the Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion is also working on solving the issues that put
up barriers and bureaucratic red tape for those who wish to develop
apprenticeship programs. Specifically, the task force recommended
giving businesses greater flexibility in their apprenticeship programs
to meet the varying needs of different industries. After all, employers
know what skills their employees need to excel in the workplace.
We should build on these successes by advancing policies that make
it more attractive and easier to invest in workers.
Rather than promoting policies that burden businesses and drive up
costs, Committee Republicans will continue to champion reforms that
expand opportunities for flexibility, innovation, and entrepreneurship
to give workers and job-seekers opportunities to compete successfully
in the 21st century economy.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming today and I look forward
to hearing from them.
______
Chairwoman Davis. I want to thank the gentleman for his
statement.
Without objection, all other members who wish to insert
written statements into the record may do so by submitting them
to the Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format,
usually within 14 days, but since we are meeting here and that
falls on January 1, we will grant time up until January 6 at 5
o'clock.
I am pleased to recognize my colleague, Representative
Jayapal, to briefly introduce her constituent who is appearing
before us as a witness today.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I am so proud to welcome Nova Gattman from Washington
State. Ms. Gattman is the deputy director for external affairs
on the State's Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board. She played a key role in coordinating and contributing
to the State's Future of Work Task Force, which brought
together business leaders, unions, worker advocates, academic
experts, and elected officials. The Task Force just issued a
very comprehensive report that I will be submitting for the
record on the future of work.
Ms. Gattman was also the co-chair of Washington's National
Governors Association Policy Academy on Work-Based Learning,
which played a key role in launching Governor Inslee's Career
Connect Washington Project.
I had the opportunity to work with Ms. Gattman when I was
in the State Senate, and delighted to have your testimony here
today. Welcome.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
And I will now introduce the remaining witnesses. Seth
Harris is an attorney in Washington, D.C., and a visiting
professor at Cornell University's Institute for Public Affairs.
Previously, he served as the Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor and
a member of President Obama's Cabinet, by the way, and Deputy
U.S. Secretary of Labor from 2009 to 2014.
James Paretti is a shareholder in the Washington, D.C.,
office of Littler Mendelson PC and a member of the firm's
Workplace Policy Institute. He is also a member of the board of
directors of the Emma Coalition and is testifying today on
behalf of the Emma Coalition.
Brad Markell is the executive director of the AFL-CIO
Working for America Institute and the executive director of the
Industrial Union Council at AFL-CIO.
We appreciate all of you being here and look forward to
your testimony. And I want to especially thank those of you who
have traveled to be here with us today.
I want to remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing
record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice,
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement.
I need to remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of
the U.S. Code, section 1001, it is illegal to knowingly and
willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing,
document, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise
conceal or cover up a material fact.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will
turn on and the members can hear you. As you begin to speak,
the light in front of you will turn green, and after 4 minutes,
the light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 remaining
minute. When the light turns red, your 5 minutes have expired
and we ask that you please wrap up.
We will let the entire panel make their presentation before
we move to member questions. And when answering a question,
please remember to once again turn your microphone on.
I will first recognize Mr. Harris.
I would like to inform you that Ms. Wild and Ms. Schrier
will be joining us at this hearing, Members from other
subcommittees.
Mr. Harris.
STATEMENT OF SETH D. HARRIS J.D., VISITING PROFESSOR, CORNELL
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SE, SUITE 310, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Smucker,
and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. I will share some lessons I learned while
overseeing the Labor Department's workforce development
programs and leading the Department's response to the Great
Recession and its aftermath.
Of course, economic catastrophes like the Great Recession
are not the only causes of worker displacement. Trade and
technology are also important. They have combined to shift
employment growth from middle-skill occupations toward low-
skill and high-skill occupations, but worker dislocation has
many causes.
Workers face relentless change, which puts them at
continual risk. Technologies, products, and services, markets,
transportation systems, and capital investment all evolve,
often unpredictably. But American workers' needs do not change.
They always need sufficient income to support themselves and
their families. They also need an opportunity to secure a place
in the American middle class through hard work, if they are
able.
Greater opportunities to acquire skills and knowledge will
enable working people to respond to dislocations and change.
Without those opportunities, middle-skill workers risk slipping
out of the middle class, and workers in low-wage, low-skill
jobs, who are most likely to cycle into similar jobs rather
than moving to higher skill jobs, risk being permanently locked
out of the middle class.
Unfortunately, the workforce development system struggles
to help all who need it. It has a patchwork design. Programs
serve only particular populations of workers: Dislocated,
disadvantaged, ex-offenders, trade-affected workers, out-of-
school-youth and others. Too many cannot find a place in any of
those programs.
And even eligible workers are challenged, because the
system is grossly underfunded. Since 2001, Congress has slashed
funding for many programs. Hundreds of thousands more workers
could have been trained if Congress appropriated at the
authorized or fiscal 2001 levels for Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act programs.
Inadequate funding also skews services away from job
training. In the first quarter of 2019, only 12 percent of
exiters and 19 percent of program participants in the WIOA
Dislocated Workers Program received training services.
Here are four additional and fundamental challenges. First,
learning while working is both expensive and demanding. Most
workers have neither the time nor the money to pursue the
credentials they need; second, the landscape of education and
training credentials is complex, too complex for ordinary
workers to sort out on their own; third, career pathways are
difficult to navigate, and most workers get little guidance;
fourth, workers do not have a guarantee in most instances that
more education or training will result in a better job.
The failure to address these challenges has contributed to
the disturbing fact that rates of upward income mobility in the
United States, that is, doing better than our parents, have
been cut almost in half over the course of two generations.
Let me suggest seven solutions. Solution one: Unions make a
huge difference in education and training. More unions and
union members would mean more skilled and knowledgeable workers
with career pathways. By contrast, unregulated industry
recognized apprenticeship programs will undermine successful
registered apprenticeships and not increase success.
Solution number two: Let's stop pretending that workers can
finance their own education and training. Congress must
substantially increase appropriations for the WIOA programs and
Pell Grants and open Pell Grants to those seeking nondegree
credentials.
Solution number three: We must have flexible delivery
systems that fit with workers' lives, but only if we can
provide a style of education that fits their learning styles.
Let's start a national dialogue about what workers need to
succeed.
Solution number four: We need a radical transparency
movement around credentials. Everyone must share their data
about credentials and their outcomes. The U.S. Government
should require public disclosure of these data.
Solution number five: We must aggressively expand the
public workforce system's existing cadre of career navigators
to help workers find their career pathways. Simply, we have
evidence that it works.
Solution number six: We need labor market intermediaries
that can help employers get organized to work with training
providers. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College
Career Training program was a success. You should re-create it.
Solution number seven: Let's break down the distinction
between pursuing a labor market credential and pursuing an
educational degree. Prior learning assessment and articulation
agreements should be the rule, not the rare exceptions.
Those are my recommendations, Madam Chair. I look forward
to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Gattman.
STATEMENT OF NOVA GATTMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS, WORKFORCE TRAINING AND EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD,
OLYMPIA WA
Ms. Gattman. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member
Smucker, and Members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity
to testify on behalf of Washington State's future of work
efforts. My name is Nova Gattman. I am the deputy director for
external affairs at Washington's Workforce Board.
Washington is often associated with large IT companies,
like Microsoft or Amazon. However, Washington is an incredibly
diverse State. IT is only our tenth largest industry sector in
the State. Agriculture is actually our second largest export
sector after aerospace. And one challenge that we face is that
economic prosperity is not equally distributed.
Unfortunately, the jobs that are most likely to be
automated are the same jobs that are most prominent in the
rural areas in the State that are currently experiencing higher
unemployment and lower wages. Washington is committed to
addressing these disparities by increasing support for workers
and building an economy that works for businesses, workers, and
communities.
Our Future of Work report highlights that 65 percent of the
jobs today's kindergartners will hold when they become adults
do not exist today. And one critical aspect of preparing for
the future of work are opportunities for career-connected
learning. Governor Inslee's Career Connect Washington
initiative envisions every student in Washington participating
in career-connected learning. This program includes local
grants to develop and build capacity in every sector and
increased enrollment funding. Since 2017, 78,000 career-
connected learning experiences have already been made possible
through this work.
Additionally, our State passed legislation this year that
would allow over 110,000 students to participate in higher
education over the next 4 years, and this includes the student
cost of participating in registered apprenticeship programs.
Also of note, uniquely, our State's program has no age limits,
and so this benefits not only an 18-year-old traditional
student seeking a 4-year degree, but also a 45-year-old mid-
career worker who is seeking retraining or up-skilling
opportunities.
In terms of Washington's public workforce development
system, we are most successful when we can begin working with
businesses and workers long before business shutters its doors
or an individual seeks unemployment insurance. A significant
challenge is that the current reactive system of Federal
supports are primarily focused on identifying mass layoffs that
qualify for funding.
To be effective as we prepare for the future of work, our
systems must look towards anticipating and addressing sector
shifts and identifying groups of workers at risk.
And now I would like to speak about Washington's Future of
Work Task Force, which is staffed by our State's Workforce
Board, and its policy recommendations. The Task Force included
four members from the legislature, six from business, and six
from labor. We were the first State in the Nation to convene a
legislative task force focused on this topic.
The Task Force came up with five broad policy areas and 17
specific recommendations. These include: Enhanced worker
training and lifelong learning opportunities; two,
understanding and setting guidelines on deploying advanced
technologies and starting with a State government workforce;
three, examining how to modernize worker support systems to
support the changing nature of work and increasing career
mobility for many individuals; four, re-imagining career and
credentialing pathways to allow for validation and comparison
of the value of educational opportunities; and finally,
deploying economic development resources to support small and
midsize businesses, especially in our more rural regions.
Some key recommendations that might be of interest from
those topic areas. First, incumbent worker training. The best
way to ensure that our workers aren't being left behind is to
ensure that they have the skills to grow with their employers
and in their careers. Our incumbent worker training programs
are popular with businesses, but the limited funds run out
quickly. The Task Force recommends that we fund the unmet
employer applications this year and supports a likely request
for $25 million for our State in 2021.
Lifelong learning accounts, or LiLAs, is another key
strategy. LiLAs are portable employee-owned accounts that help
pay for education and related expenses, with employers and
employees both contributing to the accounts. Washington was one
of the first States in the country to initiate a LiLA program,
with the support of then-State senator Derek Kilmer, who is, of
course, now your colleague, Representative Kilmer. One rural
healthcare employer estimated that LiLA saved him over $70,000
in retention costs just in the first year of using the program.
Another recommendation recognizes the role that libraries
play in our communities as a hub for those with limited access
to the internet or other resources, and calls for support to
allow local libraries to provide access to training, education,
and business development resources.
The Task Force also supports expanding the use of
collaborative applied research, which pairs a business and its
workers with a college or university to work together to
develop new products or solve a business problem.
In conclusion, although our work was focused on developing
the best future work policies to promote shared prosperity
among the residents of Washington, I hope these recommendations
can help serve as helpful blueprints for those of you here
today.
Thank you for the invitation to share Washington's story,
and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Gattman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Paretti.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. PARETTI JR., SHAREHOLDER, LITTLER
MENDELSON P.C., TREASURER, EMMA COALITION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Paretti. Chair Davis, Ranking Member Smucker, Members
of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you. My name is Jim Paretti. I am
a shareholder in the law firm of Littler Mendelson, and a
member of the board of directors of the Emma Coalition. My
testimony here this morning is solely on behalf of the Emma
Coalition, not my firm or any of its clients.
The Emma Coalition is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) corporation
dedicated to the preparation of the American workforce for
technology-induced displacement of employment, or what we call
TIDE. We seek to bring together businesses, trade associations,
labor, academic institutions, and policymakers to address the
challenges and opportunities presented by TIDE that our
workforce is already facing.
We believe that with proper preparation, employers and
workers can thrive in TIDE; but if they do nothing, TIDE will
overwhelm them.
Now, I am often asked, what does Emma stand for? In
Washington, everything is an acronym. Well, Emma is not a what
but a who, and she is the 8-year-old granddaughter of Michael
Lotito, one of my partners and the president and co-founder of
the Emma Coalition.
More than that, Emma represents the next generation of our
workforce. Each of us in this room today has an Emma, and we
owe it to all of them to ensure a skilled and prepared
workforce so that all Emmas will be able to succeed.
The National Restaurant Association is also a co-founder of
the Emma Coalition. The restaurant industry compromises over 1
million restaurants and outlets nationally, employing 15.3
million employees, roughly 10 percent of the U.S. workforce.
Given that one in three Americans get their first job in the
restaurant industry, it is at the epicenter of TIDE, and the
NRA is helping its members meet its challenges. I discuss some
of the ways in which it is doing so in my written testimony.
Respectfully, the question of whether TIDE will
fundamentally reshape our workforce is no longer before the
subcommittee. That ship has sailed. The questions now before
you are when, how, and to what extent these changes will come
and, most important, what can we do to prepare for them?
A few key points. First, the speed at which TIDE is
changing the workplace is exponentially faster than any we have
seen before. This is perhaps the most striking way in which
this industrial revolution differs from the ones that have come
before it and why we at Emma believe a response is urgent.
Second, disruption caused by TIDE will affect everyone,
regardless of class, race, geography, age, or industry, but its
impact will be felt by some individuals and in certain sectors
more than others.
Third, while we might assume that only blue-collar or lower
skilled occupations will be impacted by TIDE, it is clear that
white-collar jobs in banking, accounting, healthcare, law,
other industries will also face disruption.
Finally, while the disruption caused by TIDE may be
unsettling, TIDE need not be wholly negative, and in the long
run, is likely to have an overall positive effect on the labor
market. That is, if we take steps to ensure that our workforce
is prepared.
I am excited to be here this morning alongside the
Washington State Task Force on the Future of Work. We welcomed
the release of their report earlier this month, and we believe
that Washington State's recognition that the time for action is
now should serve as a model for other States and localities in
facing the challenges of TIDE. We are doing everything we can
to put that out there.
Another group with whom we are working is America Succeeds.
America Succeeds supports a national network of nonpartisan,
business-led policy education toward improving--I am sorry,
committed to improving public education and creating a culture
of lifelong learning.
In the 21st century workplace, it is no longer simply the
three Rs that count. Our students must also master the four Cs
of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and
collaboration. We look forward to working with America Succeeds
in their efforts.
We are convinced that data analytics will be crucial in
responding to TIDE. We need to determine how we can use data to
identify, at a granular level, which jobs are most susceptible
to displacement, what jobs are likely to replace them, what
skills are necessary for success in these new jobs, what sort
of up-skilling is necessary to close the gap, that delta, and
how do we effectively deliver what will enable displaced
workers to succeed. We are actively exploring ways with data
vendors to do so.
The need for workers throughout their careers to be dynamic
will be paramount. We believe the concept of financial
incentives for lifelong learning shows promise, as you have
heard. Currently, we provide tax-favored ways to set aside
money at the end of our careers through 401(k)s and IRAs, and
at the start of our careers through tax-deferred savings for
college. We at Emma believe we should explore the effectiveness
of providing similar benefits for workers throughout their
careers.
Finally, we need a national strategy. The U.S. is woefully
behind in responding to the complex and interrelated issues
raised by TIDE, and many view our lack of engagement not only
as a matter of economic security but is one of national
security. Compared to other countries, our efforts have been
lagging, at best, but we are pleased and hope that today's
hearing is an important first step.
At the end of the day, we know that TIDE will dramatically
transform our workforce. The challenges ahead are great, but
the Emma Coalition firmly believes that so are the
opportunities. We stand ready to work with you, and I welcome
any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Paretti follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Markell.
STATEMENT OF BRAD MARKELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO WORKING
FOR AMERICA INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Markell. Chair Davis, Ranking Member Smucker, and
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting AFL-CIO to
share its views on these important topics. I serve as the
director of the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute, a
national nonprofit intermediary that works to bring organized
labor's resources, expertise, and worker engagement to bear on
our Nation's workforce development programs and to help develop
and support innovative programs for training and support
services.
In 2017, the AFL-CIO formed a Commission on the Future of
Work and Unions, whose report you have as a part of my written
statement. The report confirms that advances in technology have
always redefined work. This is nothing new. Unions have been
addressing job displacement and skill changes within
occupations for decades. Today, we are bargaining over the fair
implementation of technology in the workplace and making sure
frontline workers have a say in the design of work as new
technologies come to the workplace.
The Commission's report makes clear that technology itself
is not the issue. The real issue is the human arrangement to
shape how technology is used. Who has a say in the development
of technology? Who gets opportunities for training for the new
tasks and the new jobs of tomorrow? Will society, through our
government, provide the resources that workers, employers, and
communities need to grow and prosper as the pace of technology
change accelerates?
The Commission engaged dozens of experts in a detailed
examination of how technology is changing work. We found, while
there is no question that technology will eliminate some jobs,
the robot apocalypse of job loss is not upon us. Rather, the
main trend over the next decade will be jobs changing with new
technology, not jobs being eliminated. This leads to the
inescapable conclusion that we must focus on understanding how
tasks will change within occupations to make sure that
incumbent workers get the skills they need to stay employed and
to be clear about the new skills needed in occupations that can
employ displaced workers, no matter why they are displaced.
As documented in my written testimony, people of color in
low-income communities are overrepresented in occupations
vulnerable to disruption and have well-identified challenges
when it comes to employment transition. In the work of WAI and
its partners, we have found that these challenges can be
overcome by providing services that address specific barriers,
such as childcare, transportation, or access to basic skills
refresher training.
We urge the committee and the Congress to take special care
in addressing and funding these programs so all Americans can
have a chance to succeed as technology changes our workplaces
and the way we work.
Many Americans have missed out on the gains of a growing
economy. Rapidly changing technology can make this worse or it
can be an opportunity to solve the very real problems of
inequality and inequity in our society.
We believe that a successful path is an all-of-the-above
approach that meets workers and employers where they are and
helps them succeed. This includes increased funding for
workforce development programs and support services, with
special attention to underserved and vulnerable populations;
promote and fund registered apprenticeships, including programs
to align them with changing technology; reform and expand
unemployment insurance and expand access to job search
assistance; reform trade adjustment assistance to expand it to
cover workers displaced by technology; expand the role of
sector partnerships, labor workforce intermediaries, and joint
labor management training programs in the workforce system.
Pass the PRO Act. Good outcomes for workers depend on
workers having an actual voice in the workplace. An open-door
policy doesn't cut it. You need institutional power so that
workers can have a voice that really puts their interests on an
even setting with employers.
Finally, we can make public investments that will create
high-quality training and good jobs and increase opportunity
for everyone. This Congress can and must lead the way.
I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Markell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
Under Committee Rule 8(a), we will now question witnesses
under the 5-minute rule. And as chair, I will ask the first
question and then be followed by the Ranking Member, and then
we will alternate between the parties.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Now, you have all laid out a few recommendations that I
think are very helpful to us. And we know that we are in a new
situation, in many cases, due to technology and a host of other
issues. We can't just reinvest perhaps in existing programs.
Some of them we may have to decide have not been so helpful,
but others we can go and approach in a different way.
And I will start with Mr. Harris. If you could just, of
those recommendations that you listed--and I understand that in
many cases it is--you mentioned that we can't assume that
workers know where to go, how to help themselves, in many
cases. But what is it that you feel is, you know, really a key
barrier, maybe something that we talk about less in terms of
these issues? And I think I would like the rest of you, if you
would, please, to, you know, of those concerns that you have,
what do we usually miss in thinking about these issues?
Professor Harris.
Mr. Harris. So I want to highlight the rather egregious
market failures that exist in the market for skills, knowledge,
and credentials. So, essentially, the way our system works is
we say to workers, figure out what degree or credential or
training you should get that is going to get you a job. We are
not going to tell you which one. And then either find your own
funding or we will provide you with funding, although you
provide very few of them with funding, let me be honest with
you.
The problem with that kind of an approach is that the
people who are making the choices, both workers and employers,
don't have the requisite information. Market systems depend
upon widely available free-flowing, readily accessible
information. Workers don't know which credentials will end up
in their getting jobs or even what skills and knowledge those
credentials certify.
Employers also often don't know that. They sometimes don't
know what credentials they want people to acquire, because they
don't know what competencies they want people to be trained in.
But they don't understand it any better than anybody else.
In the United States right now--and I mentioned this in my
testimony--there are more than 730,000 credentials that are
offered to workers and employers. No one can sort that out and
no one does. There is no Yelp for credentials in our country.
So I think that fundamental market failure is a very serious
problem that we need to solve.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
And Ms. Gattman as well. How do we get there?
Ms. Gattman. Sure.
Chairwoman Davis. What gets in the way?
Ms. Gattman. One of the things that we have been really
working on in Washington is this idea of integrated service
delivery. And WIOA, the way it was set up was, you know, it did
break down a lot of the barriers where, you know, we are able
to serve the whole worker. One of the things that has been a
concern for us is the way it is set up, though, there are
disincentives for folks to work together between different
agencies, different programs. It is a question of who gets the
credit or how does that--how is the funding distributed. And so
that is something that, you know, we would be certainly
interested in talking more about and what we could do to help
influence that conversation.
Chairwoman Davis. I know one of the things just to bring up
quickly is that many of our families actually would struggle to
pay a $400 unexpected expense. So how does that relate to what
you are saying? What do we need there to have some assistance,
cheer people on?
Ms. Gattman. Sure. So one of the aspects of our report that
we highlighted is the Lifelong Learning Accounts program. So
when we are talking about that unexpected expense, particularly
regarding to education programs, when you have--a lot of the
times that is the main reason people are dropping out of higher
education. And so having access to an account that can bridge
some of those smaller amounts but they are still very
significant to the families makes a huge difference.
Chairwoman Davis. Could be helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Paretti, and then, Mr. Markell, I haven't left you too
much time, but we will try and get to you really quickly.
Mr. Paretti. I was labor counsel for 8 years to the
committee but on the workforce side, so I never sat in a
hearing where the witnesses actually generally agreed with one
another or thought we were all fighting the same battles. It is
a pleasure.
I will endorse what Ms. Gattman said with regard to
Lifelong Learning Accounts. I think resources obviously are a
barrier. Two other points quickly. I think with respect to
data, I agree with Professor Harris that we really need to take
a close look. And I believe that we can.
The numbers are out there, whether they are publicly
available, some are privately available, industry-based, to say
how do we figure out what jobs are going, what are leaving,
where are they going, and what are the skills and core
competencies needed.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. I am going to switch to Mr.
Markell. We will be back and talk to everybody some more.
Mr. Markell, quickly, just that one kind of glaring thing
that we have to have.
Mr. Markell. Organized labor is really, really concerned
that workers are being steered down bad paths that don't lead
to good jobs and stable occupations. So we need to learn a lot
more about the quality of jobs and the outcomes for training
providers that are trying to pull people into training that
doesn't lead them anywhere.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, and would you like us
to--I will let you--and we are going to go to Mr. Guthrie.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. Thank you all for being
here. It is great to have you.
Mr. Paretti, I am chair of the E-Commerce Caucus, along
with Peter Aguilar of California. One of our main focuses is
how the e-commerce industry will support American
competitiveness and economic growth.
As our country develops new innovative technologies, such
as improving the artificial intelligence, we have to ensure
that we are helping people learn the skills to work with new
technology. And I am particularly interested in your example of
the healthcare industry adapting AI. Can you expand on the
benefits and challenges of an industry that embraces technology
such as AI versus one that is not adaptive and keeps the status
quo?
Mr. Paretti. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. I think the
healthcare industry is a great example of the role of AI in
improving outcomes across the board. Through the use of
artificial intelligence, robotics, you now have surgeons and
others who are able to perform much more complex surgeries than
they have ever done in less time with better patient outcomes
and better results.
The automated ability to track a patient's condition,
monitoring in the hospital, those are all things that would
just require a human body to do. At the same time, what it has
allowed for is the development of skills in other areas.
Whereas, you no longer need a nurse necessarily walking the
halls to hand out pills, that can be taken care of.
What you do need is someone to more fully engage with the
patient on a holistic basis and work with them towards managing
whatever has gotten them there towards their treatment. So I
think the healthcare industry is a striking example of where AI
presents challenges but also some great opportunities.
Mr. Guthrie. You mentioned in your testimony that some
studies say that 85 percent of the jobs--85 percent of the jobs
that will exist in 2040 have not been--don't exist today. And I
am trying to think of that--that is only 20 years away--and
think of 85 percent of the disruption in the workforce. It is
something you want to talk about as well. I know that is in
your testimony.
And I was just thinking, you know, 20 years ago, we really
didn't have--you had phones, but not to the level that we have.
So all the work that has come--Amazon, I mean those, they
existed, but not to the point that they are.
So of the studies you have seen, what are you thinking and
how can Congress--maybe if you want to address that too, how
can Congress--what do we need to do to get out of the way or to
help in order to make sure we have people qualified for these
80 percent of new jobs in 20 years? That is not that long away.
Mr. Paretti. No, no. And I mean, I do say I think we do
need to acknowledge the studies vary widely. You will see
everything from 45 to 85 percent, and on its face, it is a
somewhat startling figure.
Mr. Guthrie. Substantial.
Mr. Paretti. Oh, it is absolutely substantial. But you
think, oh, my goodness, these jobs haven't been created yet.
Well, as you rightly pointed out, could you imagine 20 years
ago the folks who were making and servicing all the platform
vehicles that we use now, the phones, the other technology, you
know, that were available too. social media, web design, so
much of what we have seen become automated.
Mr. Guthrie. You know, one of the limits of 5G development
and employment are people capable of installing the 5G
equipment.
Mr. Paretti. I am sorry, I didn't hear.
Mr. Guthrie. One of the biggest impediments to 5G is not
just all the technology and stuff, it is having people with the
ability to--enough people with the ability to be able to
install the towers, not really towers but what you use for 5G.
Mr. Paretti. Sure. No, that is exactly right. And I think
that is among those 7 million jobs that Mr. Smucker referred
to, in terms of a skills gap.
In connection with this hearing this morning, I had a
number of folks reach out to me and say, boy, make the point,
Jim, that we are trying to hire folks and we just can't find--
these are manufacturers, these are auto manufacturers. We have
talented--we have jobs that provide good long-term wages, a
road to success, and we simply can't find the folks to get them
in there.
Sometimes that is a failing of the educational system.
Sometimes that is a failing of the job training system. But I
think, you know, a focus from top to bottom, and particularly
with respect in K-12, in sort of changing the paradigm. Workers
need to understand it is no longer--you are going to get there.
You are going to get your terminal degree, whether it is a
bachelor's or an associate's or a certificate, and that is
going to be enough to carry you.
Mr. Guthrie. We also have the issue we are at record
unemployment and trying to get more people into the workforce.
But I have learned--and I was in manufacturing, as Professor
Harris talked about--the best people to train are the people
already working that need to go up the ladder so they can earn
more money. They have got the work ethic. They are showing up
for work to train.
But you get to the flexibility. It is really hard to work
in a factory 40 hours a week, hoping for overtime and having a
family and trying to--so we have to be flexible with this. And
any kind of thoughts of you guys on how you--and as we have
talked about here, apprenticeships particularly, how do we get
people trained as they are working?
You know, just to take 4 years off and go back to college
and have summers off and spring break and fall break, that is
just not what these people are looking for. They are looking
for a pathway to be able to earn a living. And that is perfect
for people 18 to--whenever you can go back for.
But how do we grab somebody that is 30 that is like, wow,
it is kind of a dead-end job, but I can really see, instead of
loading this robot, if I can fix it, then I am going to make a
lot more money. And how do we make those contacts? Those are
the things we are trying to think through. If anybody wants to
comment.
Mr. Paretti. I don't want to monopolize time, if anyone--
Mr. Guthrie. I know Professor Harris talked about
flexibility, we needed flexibility in delivery.
Mr. Harris. Right. So my main point about flexibility is
that asynchronous distance learning is not a panacea. It is a
very good delivery system, but not everybody is appropriate to
distance learning. For the workers that you are talking about--
and I share that concern about incumbent workers who are not
finding a pathway up a career ladder--they really need help
understanding career pathways from their employers.
And also let me say, where you have a union, you almost
always have a very well-defined career pathway. So they need
understanding about how do I get from here to there and who's
going to provide me with that training? Is the employer going
to do it? Is some public enterprise going to do it? Is a
partnership with a community college going to do it?
And if I get the credential, is it a credential that is not
only going to help me in my current workplace, but will it help
me in the labor market as a whole with other employers. That
is--
Mr. Guthrie. As the new jobs come--I know she is gaveling,
so we better--thank you so much, and I appreciate your time and
effort. Thank you.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. And I tried to give
the Ranking Member back some time.
Okay. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here on such an important subject.
I think as we think about the future of work, it is
particularly important that we think about every job being a
good job.
I am very proud of our home State. I think we have some of
the best worker protections and wages across the country.
And so, Ms. Gattman, let me start with you. The report, the
Future of Work report shows that the median wage has increased
across the State, with most of the wage growth going to the
highest and lowest earning workers. And the report attributes
that wage growth in the lower paying entry-level jobs, in
particular, primarily to recent increases in the State minimum
wage. So it is clear that a good job is a job that pays a
livable wage.
What other factors did the Task Force identify that
contribute to job quality?
Ms. Gattman. Thank you, Representative. The Task Force
spent a lot of time on this topic. It is a broad category, job
quality, that encompasses a wide range of characteristics: pay,
hours worked, job safety. There is a range of different areas
there.
We identified the following six topics that really we felt
encompassed whether a job was a quality job to a worker, and
each section goes into greater detail in our report. I
encourage you to take a look if you haven't had a chance yet.
But those areas: Wage growth and wage disparity first; second,
worker voice, self-determination, and job autonomy; third,
employment structure, relationships, and benefits; fourth, job
deskilling; fifth, an accessible career pipeline. Five areas,
actually.
So some of these do have specific policy recommendations in
the report, and then others we did flag as needing further
study. The Task Force was a 15-month task force so far, and we
are looking to extend that, but we do need to do further study
on some of those items.
Ms. Jayapal. And this was the agreement--one of the things
I liked about the Task Force is that you had businesses, you
had worker representation, worker organizations and unions, all
at the table coming up with this unanimous set of
recommendations around the important areas for a good job.
You also found in your report that while median wages grew
in Washington State, there were some workers who were left
behind. What interventions specifically related to wage
disparities did the Task Force suggest to address those
disparities?
Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you. So incumbent worker training
is certainly a factor for us in helping workers grow with their
companies and earning those higher wages.
The Task Force also had a recommendation on joint worker
management committees as part of any State incumbent worker
training funding. We think that will help ensure the workers'
needs and interests are reflected when those public funds are
invested to support business growth and development.
The report also talks about better labor market data and
credential transparency. We want people to be able to better
prepare for their career futures and to make wise decisions on
how to invest their time and money to achieve those career
goals. So to do that, they need information about program
outcomes and the actual skills and competencies that would
result from a course or credential.
Ms. Jayapal. One of the things that is growing in our State
is the number of contingent workers. And, you know, contingent
workers have far fewer legal protections, less safety benefits,
less retirement security.
What do you recommend that we look at to keep those workers
safe and secure?
Ms. Gattman. Sure. So the information we have on this, it
is largely anecdotal. We went through a lot of research on the
contingent workforce, and we found that contingent work is on
the rise, particularly in terms of part-time supplemental
income.
But our report covers quite a bit, and it comes down to
choice. So are the workers taking contingent jobs because they
like the flexibility, they earn enough to support their
families, or are they taking that because they have no other
options? And so we posed the question: Can we create the public
worker support network and infrastructure that enables those
workers to earn a family-sustaining income while working in a
career that is meaningful to them?
And so one of the things that we recommend is we want to
look at the public worker benefit system and see if there are
things that we need to do to help improve that system to be
more responsive to contingent workers.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
A report that was released yesterday by The Century
Foundation calls my Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which is
cosponsored by many on this subcommittee, a model of innovation
for other sectors as policymakers consider what laws are needed
to ensure an inclusive and equitable future for work.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
introduce both the Future of Work Task Force report and the
2019 Century Foundation report entitled ``Domestic Workers
Bill: A Model for Tomorrow's Workforce'' into the record.
Chairwoman Davis. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Future of Work Task Force 2019 Policy Report: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116HPRT43987/pdf/CPRT-
116HPRT43987.pdf
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Watkins is next then, the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
In Kansas, we talk with a lot of chief executives who
certainly have the work, and they would do more if they had the
people. And so, Mr. Paretti, I hear this from employers all the
time, you know.
And so my question is, they can't find enough skilled
workers for their positions, and so how will this problem be
exacerbated with the coming TIDE, with the technology-induced
displacement of employment?
Mr. Paretti. Thank you, Congressman. We have already seen
it, I mean, and the speed at which it is happening is
accelerating. More and more as lower skilled jobs are displaced
by automation, by artificial intelligence, they do create other
opportunities, but those opportunities are a higher skill
level.
If we are currently in a situation where we can't fill 7
million jobs now because of the lack of skilled workers, as the
jobs that are out there require a greater skill set and greater
set of competencies to master, that number is going to only get
bigger.
What we can do about it, I think, is talk about, as we
mentioned, lifelong learning. I think instilling a sort of a
dynamic concept into this. Understand you are going to
constantly throughout your career having to be up-skilling
yourself, constantly learning and looking toward the next
position.
I was heartened by the chair's comment that we spend a ton
of money right now on workforce training programs, but, as I
think it was Professor Harris' testimony, it is scattered among
so many different programs that serve different constituencies.
Is there a way to look at and spend--you know, if we are
spending this much money, can we spend it more wisely and more
effectively? That is one thing I would certainly endorse taking
a close look at.
Mr. Watkins. Thanks. And, like you mentioned, it is not
just low wage or minimal skill/no skill labor. We are starting
to see this expand to banking and accounting and other fields.
I am particularly interested in the example that you
brought up in the healthcare industry with regards to AI. And
AI has the ability to provide workers with the opportunity to
focus more on face-to-face--
Mr. Paretti. Yes.
Mr. Watkins.--and less repetitive work. So what sectors
embrace the mindset versus sectors that one will attempt to
cling to the status quo?
Mr. Paretti. Well, I mean, I think those sectors that don't
embrace the mindset are going to find that it is going to smack
them in the face one way or the other. To some extent, the
automation in TIDE is going to be somewhat inevitable. What we
can do is prepare ourselves for it.
You mentioned healthcare--I think Mr. Guthrie talked about
that as well--as a great opportunity for particularly
traditionally undervalued skills, and this is interesting. We
talk about the disparate impacts of TIDE. One positive is that
it is largely expected that TIDE will favor women workers and
female workers as opposed to male, because so many of the
skills that were traditionally undervalued--social skills,
empathy, interaction, the things that lead to face-to-face
time--those are going to be more and more in demand as routine,
rote, sort of easy-to-do and noncomplex tasks are replaced by
automation. So I think those are opportunities there.
I see it in my law firm. I mean, I was an associate 20
years ago, and one of your first things you did for the first
year of your career was sit in a room with boxes of documents
and look for anything that looked different. So much of that
can be done automated now that we no longer need to have folks
doing that. So it frees up associates to be working at a higher
level and ultimately moving.
But, yeah, I think the thought that this is simply going to
be, oh, it is the folks at the drugstore or in the fast food
restaurants who are going to be displaced, it is much larger
than that.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
I yield the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. Did you want to yield to
anyone in particular?
No. Okay.
Mr. Watkins. No, ma'am.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
Okay. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing and to the witnesses for being here this morning.
Professor Harris, I just want to go back to one of your
comments about the fact that a creative way to address this
problem is to use the Pell Grant program to be available for
nondegree credential programs. The good news is we just voted
out of committee the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act a few weeks ago, and section 4013 actually embraced that
concept for the first time. Again, we are opening up Pell
Grants to nondegree programs.
And, again, just for the record, Madam Chairwoman, I just
want to enter into the record section 4013 from the CAA so that
we can again--
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. Without objection.
Mr. Courtney.--make it a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Courtney. However, one point which there was a little
bit of a dustup during the markup was on the question of, you
know, which programs should actually be allowed to use public
dollars. Again, the section which I just referenced was careful
to make sure that it was WIOA-certified programs, again,
programs which have kind of--you know, we have run the traps on
to make sure they are not junk certificates.
And I was wondering, again, if you could just sort of, you
know, just comment on whether or not that is the right
approach, to just make sure we are not indiscriminately opening
up, you know, public dollars to programs which may not provide
anything of value.
Mr. Harris. Yes. I think that is--I think the committee got
it exactly right. We need to ensure that the programs that are
funded with Pell Grant money--and I would say not just Pell
Grant money, but all public money--are actually delivering
training and credentials that have value in the labor market
for workers, preferably paired with career pathways, advice,
and guidance that allows those credentials to actually turn
directly into a job. So I think that is exactly right.
The only point that I would add about Pell Grants is that I
think it is exactly right to open it up to nondegree
credentials, but that means we need more money, because,
otherwise, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. And what I would
rather do is let's help Peter and Paul get the training and
education that they need. So let's expand the funding, the
appropriations for Pell Grants as much as we possibly can to
accommodate the additional influx of people using it for
nondegree credentials.
Mr. Courtney. Well, yesterday's minibus that actually did
plus up to some degree Pell for the first time in years, I
realize, but, you know, at least we are moving into positive
territory.
Mr. Markell, again, you talked about the registered
apprenticeship program, which, again, I think there is very
strong bipartisanship support for plussing or sizing it up to
deal with the, you know, skills gap, job openings, and the
economy there.
However, again, to go back to the discussion we just had on
credentialed certificate nondegree programs, it is key, isn't
it, to make sure that apprenticeship certificates that have
been around since the Fitzgerald Act passed in 1937 continues
to maintain some standards to make sure that workers have
something that is portable, and also employers know that they
are getting something of quality? I just wonder if you could
comment on that.
Mr. Markell. We are really keen to see registered
apprenticeship move into different occupations across different
sectors. We think it is a great model. There are a lot of
protections for employees and employers, frankly, in the
registered apprenticeship model.
We know things like EEOC plans are required inside of
registered apprenticeships. We know that there are plans in
contracts that are signed. We are seeing some--for instance, in
the tech industry, the tech industry has decided that there are
sort of two paths now. You can come from a fancy college or you
can go to a registered apprenticeship, and they will put you
into a pretty good job and give you a good career pathway.
In healthcare, registered apprenticeships are expanding. In
our own work, we are pushing registered apprenticeships into
the production workforce in manufacturing, because we think
that as technology changes and skills are pushed onto the
production floor, you are going to see the average worker, the
production worker, who used to just show up and hit their
machine and do their work, starting to have tasks that are
associated with technology.
Registered apprenticeship is a way to codify that, to
spread it across employers, and to make sure that everybody
gets a fair shot at a credential that is going to be
recognized, gives them a chance to change jobs if they want to,
gives them a chance to move, lets employers know that they are
getting the right skills when they get the person with that
apprenticeship.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, I know the chairwoman is very
focused on moving this issue forward next year and, again, we
will take your comments I am sure into consideration as we
start that markup process.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Walker, the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is no secret that American businesses across all
industries are making automation advancements in their day-to-
day activities. I think we would all agree with that. This is a
reality that North Carolinians in my district face every day.
In fact, Mr. Paretti, you previously mentioned Greensboro,
a city in my district, as being one of the cities that has high
automation potential.
But the solution to ensuring that workers are prepared for
new automation-driven jobs is not found in, in my opinion,
additional mandates imposed on local businesses by the Federal
Government. Our evidence shows that it is found in private-
public partnerships that facilitate collaboration between
employers and employees to engage in ongoing training.
So, Mr. Paretti, we have repeatedly heard today that
increased automation is the main cause for job displacement.
However, the growing trends toward automation can actually have
a positive impact on our economy. Would you agree with that or
disagree with that?
Mr. Paretti. Oh, I would absolutely agree. I mean, I think
in the long run the effect on our labor market and our economy
is going to be very positive. Productivity is increased--you
know, all of those things--costs are lower, passed on to
consumers--
Mr. Walker. So this is not just abstract; you have data
that proves this assertion. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Paretti. Yeah. Yes, I could get that to the committee.
Mr. Walker. You mentioned in your testimony the importance
of offering tax incentives to encourage saving for new training
and development, similar to a 529 savings account or 401(k).
Can you explain what would be the benefit to displaced
workers if they had access to these kinds of savings accounts?
Mr. Paretti. Certainly. Two areas come to mind.
One is just the fact of having the money set aside in a
tax-favored way. That means, when it is time to re-skill and
perhaps before it is time--we don't endorse the concept of you
should wait for your job to be gone to start thinking about the
next one. You should constantly be building your skills. And if
you have those resources to draw on, like a lifelong learning
account or something of that sort, that provides that for you.
Also, done correctly, they provide a portability of
benefits. I think one of the Members earlier mentioned the
contingent workforce. That number is not--BLS data suggests
that number is not growing, sort of, as quickly as the trope
would suggest, that, oh, we are all becoming contingent
workers. The number has actually stayed fairly static. But one
thing that certainly contingent workers face is a problem that
so many of our benefit systems, starting with, you know, the
ERISA-governed plans that are within the committee's
jurisdiction, are tied to an employer and tied to your
employment. If you can carry some of these benefits from
employer to employer to different jobs when you are working on
a contingent basis, when you are working full-time, when you
are working part-time, I think that goes a long way, too,
towards providing, you know, a cushion there for folks.
Mr. Walker. Where do you feel like the opposition from that
particular perspective or approach that you just mentioned,
where do you feel that there is opposition preventing that from
happening?
Mr. Paretti. Well, I mean, certainly insofar as we are
willing to provide a tax-favored treatment of a set-aside, that
does take resources, that is a cost. So we need to have the
wherewithal to say, okay, are we willing to spend that money?
Or, alternately, if we are not willing to spend new money,
where can we find money that we are now spending in a not-so-
productive way that might allow us to do that?
Mr. Walker. Yeah, we might have a few of those in this
House.
As I stated earlier, public-private partnerships have been
proven to address the issues related to our skills gap much
better than the Federal Government can.
What are some of the challenges, if you would, that you all
face at the Emma Coalition when partnering with other
organizations to bridge the gap between employers and
education? Let me put it this way. What can we do in Congress
to ease some of these burdens and further your goal?
Mr. Paretti. Sure. Well, I think, to be frank, this hearing
this morning is a great start towards that, because one of the
challenges we face--2 years ago, if I had started to have this
conversation with someone about AI and training and what the
impact on the workforce is going to be, I might get a polite
nod and, ``Oh, that is interesting'' and, you know, find
someone else to talk to, but I think now we have realized that
this is a thing. And the national dialogue that Emma was formed
to start and to foster has already begun, as evidenced by the
fact that we are sitting in this room.
So one of the challenges we face is just getting employers,
employees, and others to understand this is something that is
going to happen and we need to be taking responsibility for it
now. We can't try to do this from the rearview mirror. It won't
work.
Mr. Walker. Thank you for your expertise.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all the witnesses.
We know that entire sectors of the economy are
transforming. I serve on the Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis and recognize that climate change affects our economy,
but it is also linked with the need to create good-paying jobs,
as we see workers in the fossil-fuel industries are seeing a
transition as we move to more clean energy resources. We need
to make sure that those workers have the support and resources
they need.
But we can also look at this as a tremendous opportunity to
create good jobs for working families through the energy and
energy efficiency sectors, especially for those who could
otherwise lose their positions.
But we know that we have significant work to do. We know
our workforce policies are currently fragmented and put the
burden on the worker to prove the cause of their displacement
and then navigate the resources on their own.
So, Professor Harris, in your testimony, you talked about
the Department of Labor's Trade Adjustment Assistance Community
College Career Training Program, which is a really long title,
and that provided grants mostly to community colleges but to
some universities to support workers after the displacement and
unemployment from the Great Recession. Of course, that program
ended in 2018.
So, based on your experience and third-party evaluation of
that program, what are the most effective practices that are
worthy of replication? And how could intermediaries help us
accelerate training workers across multiple sectors of our
economy?
Mr. Harris. Well, you are right, Congresswoman, that we
require that all of the TAACCCT grants have third-party
evaluations. There has been a meta-analysis of the third-party
evaluations put forward by the New America Foundation, and it
found that the TAACCCT grants increased program completion,
they increased credential acquisition, they increased
employment opportunities. So they were very successful in that
regard.
The most important thing that they did was that they
brought, exactly in the way that the Congressman was talking
about, they brought together employers and community colleges
and universities to develop programs for local and regional
economies that would result in workers getting trained in the
skills that would lead to in-demand jobs--
Ms. Bonamici. In their--
Mr. Harris.--in their economies. That is right.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Harris. So the problem was that the program was limited
to programs for grants for workers who were trade-affected. So
workers who were affected by climate change, we couldn't build
a program specifically for that.
So I think in the future what we need to think is much,
much more broadly about dislocation from a number of sources,
particularly and including climate change.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Markell, you noted in your testimony that the AFL-CIO's
Commission on the Future of Work and Unions recently released a
report about, sort of, transition assistance programs and
avoiding displacement before it occurs. We need to make sure
that our communities have that economic development support.
So, based on the findings, what effective strategies can
Congress support to help workers prepare for future
transformation and avoid displacement? And what role will
unions play in helping to support workers? How can we make sure
more people have access as our economy adapts?
Mr. Markell. What we have discovered is that the concept of
just transition that emerged around the energy discussion is
really applicable to all the technology transformations that we
are having. And in order to get that right, one key factor is
that there has to be a voice for workers and communities that
are affected.
We can't sit here and tell everybody what is justice for
people that are being affected. You have to hear it from them.
And what you will find is that people want investment driven to
their communities; then they want the job-training
opportunities that follow that investment.
It is really important for workers to understand that they
may never have a job in that same sector again, but we need to
make all the jobs in those sectors good. That is where unions
come in. That is where the PRO Act comes in. And it is super-
important from labor's point of view that workers and
communities are at the table--
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Mr. Markell.--as we discuss these programs, because that is
how we are going to get the success that they desire, that they
define for themselves.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
And because votes are called, I am going to yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. This topic kind of surprises me a
little bit, because when I get around my district, the major
fear is that we won't have enough people, you know, not the
problem that we have a bunch of people who don't know what to
do.
But there is concern, and I think I will focus that concern
particularly on three areas: on construction, on manufacturing,
and the medical field. And I think, in all three areas, the
problem we have is we have a shortage of people, quite frankly,
in this country who want to work with their hands.
You know, I think we could build more houses in my district
if only we had more people in construction. Can't find them. I
am told if you go into that field, within 3 or 4 years, you are
going to be making six figures. In the medical field, again, as
the population gets older, shortage of people.
I am going to ask you, Mr. Paretti--or, I think there are
two problems that are causing the shortage, or at least people
think there are. And I am going to ask you to comment on these.
First of all, we have too many people getting degrees. And
Professor Harris mentioned the fact that some people are
overpromising. I want you to address that, Mr. Paretti. Are
universities sometimes overpromising a high wage when, in fact,
if people got skills-based education, which frequently does not
necessarily mean a college degree, they would be making more
money and having more job security? Could you comment on that?
Mr. Paretti. Sure.
Mr. Grothman. Are universities overpromising?
Mr. Paretti. I don't know that I would say that
universities are overpromising as much as, generally, I think,
the mindset has always been, if you go get a degree, if you get
a 4-year degree, you will always do better. And there has been
an aversion to saying that the path for everyone is not a 4-
year degree.
I think our community colleges, in that regard, are a
tremendously undervalued resource in terms of developing
skills-based learning and the sorts of things that lead to
prosperity.
You mentioned manufacturing. We do a lot of work with the
National Association of Manufacturers and with their members.
And one of the problems they face is they say, you know, when
you say--parents don't tell their kids, ``Go get a job in the
factory or go into manufacturing,'' because it is a mindset of
40 years ago, where it might have been dangerous--
Mr. Grothman. Well, I think the problem is--
Mr. Paretti. Go ahead.
Mr. Grothman.--we have people on this committee who talk
about it like somehow it is a superior type of thing, to go to
college.
And I want you to elaborate that, as far as the job
opportunities. Do you see people going back and getting jobs in
what in Wisconsin we call technical colleges, I guess you call
community colleges, that maybe got a degree in the first place
in which they were maybe overpromised a given salary and they
didn't get it?
Mr. Paretti. I am sure there are some. I wouldn't want to
rattle off or pretend to rattle off with my fingers, you know,
what those numbers are.
But I certainly do endorse the concept that in, whether it
is technical or community colleges, providing those sorts of
skills--which are necessary. You know, even what we
traditionally call blue-collar jobs, manufacturing, it is no
longer simply enough to be able to use your hands; you need to
use your head as well.
I was on the floor of a plant just outside of St. Louis
that manufactures fuse boxes, big things you see on traffic
lights and such, manufactures most of them in the country, in
fact. And if I tell you, to a person, male, female, everybody
was in front of a screen and they were working with a computer,
not against the computer, not displaced by. But the skills were
necessary there--
Mr. Grothman. When you tour manufacturers, do you find
that, even among the skilled workers they have, that too many
of them are probably going to be retired in the next 10 years
and, in fact, we are going to have a worker shortage?
Mr. Paretti. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Mr. Paretti. Unequivocally.
Mr. Grothman. And I will give you one more question. There
is a lot of talk around here about credentialism. I think
sometimes credentialism kind of mucks up the economy, because
you have people who are capable of doing a job but they don't
have the credential.
Could you comment on this drive towards more credentialing?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Mr. Paretti. I think knowing what is a valuable credential
and what leads to something can be a good thing. I think to be,
sort of, mindlessly stuck on the idea that I can't fill someone
in this job if they don't check, you know, the following three
boxes--you know, how many applications for employment ask do
you have a bachelor's degree where, frankly, whether you have
one or don't have one is not going to be relevant to the job
that you are doing?
So I think, sort of, a foolish reliance on simply check the
box or, you know--
Mr. Grothman. Do you think there is too much credentialism
in the United States?
Mr. Paretti. I don't. I don't think that there is too much
credentialism. I think there may be insufficient information
about where credentials are valuable and helpful and where it
is simply, you know, get the next thing because it is the next
thing.
Mr. Grothman. I will yield my remaining 10 seconds.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
We will have one more Member, the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Levin, and then we will recess until after this vote and
whatever may come next.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am delighted to
get to ask my questions before we adjourn for votes.
You know, friends, I am a little unusual around here. I
spent a lot of time working with one of you in the movement to
raise up workers in this country. I am the only Member of
Congress who used to run a State workforce system. I worked
with another one of you in an earlier version of that. And then
I also have worked a lot in the clean energy sector.
And so I want to put those three things together and ask
you about what I believe must be the greatest technological
disruption ahead, and that is to deal with climate change. We
have to move very, very fast and very, very comprehensively to
transform everything about the way we build things, manufacture
things, move around, live, work, all of our buildings, all of
our transportation.
I see tremendous opportunities here for the United States,
for great jobs, for the economy. But let's be honest; we have a
horrible track record of dealing with workers who are displaced
by technological change or affected by it. And here, the energy
sector is an area where we have great jobs, in a lot of cases,
people who have been through registered apprenticeships, who
have amazing skills and pride in their work.
So talk to me about how this body, the Congress of the
United States, should deal with what we need to do to make sure
the workers most affected by any changes involved here are
right at the center of the table in discussing, you know,
displacement due to climate change and how we can best train
people for new jobs and honor the work they have been doing.
Do you want to start, Professor Harris?
Mr. Harris. So I share your optimism about what a move to
respond to climate change and to green jobs can mean for job
creation. I think it will be a net job creator, very
significantly so. And they will be good-quality, middle-skill
jobs.
And I share your view that workers are deeply, deeply
concerned about the transition. To the extent that they are
looking at all, they look at the jobs they have, which are, for
many of them, very good, middle-skill, unionized jobs, and they
look at the sectors into which they think these jobs are going
to flow. They see very few unions. They see wages that are not
as good. They don't see benefits, necessarily. And they wonder,
is my future going to be a low-wage, low-skill future?
And what you can do--and I want to do this at a very high
level so others can comment. But what Congress can do is to not
just acknowledge that is true but to respond by ensuring that
workers can transition into good-quality jobs as seamlessly and
at low cost as possible to them.
And that means providing them with training, providing them
with benefits, providing them with income support, providing
them with career pathways, pointing to the jobs, helping the
industries that are creating the jobs to hire those workers,
and passing the PRO Act so those workers can organize.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Markell, do you want to jump in? What are
your thoughts here?
Mr. Markell. Well, there is so much to be said here. I
think one of the defining features of a clean-energy economy is
that spending that used to be on fuels is spending on
manufactured items. So we need to make sure we are attracting
the clean-energy manufacturing sector to the United States so
that we can get the full benefits of the clean-energy economy.
I spend a lot of time thinking about and working on just
transition issues. For workers and communities that are losing
jobs, at this point primarily coal communities where coal is
mined or where coal was burned to make power, the key factor is
driving investment to those communities to create new jobs.
Training, sorry to say to Members of this committee,
training does not create jobs. Jobs create the need for
training. And to the extent that we are going to provide a just
transition for coal communities, we need to drive investment to
those communities, and we need to make sure that those workers
understand that, whatever sector they worked in, they are going
to have a good job.
Mr. Levin. Ms. Gattman, you have a lot of experience in
this. What are your thoughts?
Ms. Gattman. Sure, Congressman.
So one of the things that we looked at, we did a report on
outdoor jobs and the outdoor-job sector in Washington State.
And one of the things that we recognized from that particular
report is we were missing some of the signaling mechanisms to
show that some of those green jobs, those outdoor-recreation-
type jobs, were in demand.
And one of the areas that was really lacking was having
occupational data available about the jobs that different
employees were using. So, in that particular sector, the
employers were saying, ``Hey, we really need folks,'' but the
administrative data was not showing the need for that
particular sector, so we weren't signaling the need for
training and education for that.
Mr. Levin. All right. Thanks. My time has expired. I
appreciate you all.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
And we will be back after votes. Thank you again.
Is that going to be all right for everybody, to stay with
us?
Great. Thank you.
[Recess.]
[12:06 p.m.]
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you all for your patience. We
appreciate it.
I want to turn now to Dr. Foxx, the Ranking Member of the
Education and Labor Committee.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Paretti, although displacement rates have gone down in
recent years, it is inevitable we will need to prepare for
workforce displacement as our society continues to experience
technological changes and shifts in employer priorities. While
it is important for us to attempt to minimize the challenges
associated with employer innovation, we cannot shackle
continued economic growth that provides more jobs and better
wages in the long run.
Can you please discuss some of the benefits we might see as
our Nation increases the use of automation? Given these
dynamics, why is it important to be proactive in seeking out
solutions?
Mr. Paretti. Sure. I think in the long term we will see
quite a few--you know, a significant amount of benefit from
automation, artificial intelligence. And that starts with
increased productivity, which can lead to increased wages,
increased spending.
So the quality of jobs should go up as more routine jobs
are perhaps displaced. I am not suggesting we should encourage
that very quickly, but I think, if it is going to happen, we
need to be prepared for it and to do it.
I, too, would be concerned with, sort of, shackling
ourselves to an older, outdated model. I mean, the face of work
has changed so dramatically and is changing so dramatically
that, you know, the words I hear most when I talk to folks in
this space are things like ``agile,'' ``nimble,'' ``dynamic,''
being able to respond and provide. And I think that is what--
you know, employers have every incentive to do that too. The
last thing you want, you know, is to lose valued employees and
valued knowledge.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
I was thinking, as you were talking, about the turn of the
century, when cars were created, and thinking, probably a lot
of people thought it was the end of the world, we were going to
stop making wagons, stop making buggy whips, and things like
that. But look at the magnificent numbers of jobs that came
around as a result of cars being created in our culture.
Mr. Paretti, you described in your testimony the example of
Cargill, a company who focuses on upskilling their employees
and was then able to provide higher skilled positions to 90
percent of those same employees.
This seems outside the norm of the typical zero-sum
narrative surrounding displacement. What value is there for
companies who focus on these types of workforce development
efforts in the face of potential disruption? Is this something
more companies can do? And can most companies do this?
Mr. Paretti. Well, obviously, each company's response is
going to be individualized to itself, but Cargill, which I
discuss in my testimony, does offer a great example. They were
going through a plant closure. They recognized that--and for a
period of time, it was then going to upskill and automate the
plant.
They realized that it would be difficult for them to
attract jobs, you know, people to fill these new jobs that were
going to be created, and they had a valuable workforce, many of
whom had invested time, energy, and resources in the company.
They made the decision that, during that closure, they
provided access to training programs, they partnered with a
local community college in doing so, and, at the end of the
day, yes, were able to bring back something like 90 percent of
the workforce, most of them in better-paying and higher-paying
positions, more skilled positions.
Is that the norm? I would hesitate to say it is typical. Is
it something that we might aspire to and encourage and foster
companies to make those sorts of investments? To the extent
that is within your power, our power, I would certainly hope
so.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I think, again, over the years, as you say,
it really is in the interest of the employer to do whatever
possible to keep their business going. They face the same kinds
of challenges if they are not able to help the employees
upskill.
I think too often in this setting here we hear such
negative things about employers and how they are taking
advantage of employees and don't care about them, so I think
having good examples like that is really important.
And my experience is that is what is happening all over the
country. Employers understand, if they want to stay in
business, number one, they have to treat their employees well,
and they have to plan for the future. And I am not sure that
there is a great understanding on some of our colleagues of the
very positive way that employers face these challenges.
So thank you very much.
And thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Paretti. Thank you, Doctor.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Adams, the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member
Smucker, for convening the hearing today.
And thank you all for your testimony.
U.S. investment in the public workforce system is sorely
inadequate and has declined sharply in recent decades. For
example, the National Skills Coalition finds that, since 2001,
WIOA funding has been cut by 40 percent, career and technical
education funding by 29 percent, and adult basic education by
almost 15 percent.
The United States spends about 0.1 percent of gross
domestic product, or GDP, on workforce development, compared to
about six times as much in other developed nations.
Mr. Harris, I will start with you. Why has public
investment in workforce development declined so sharply in
recent decades? And what are the consequences of this reduced
investment?
Mr. Harris. Congresswoman, it is certainly not because we
don't have a need. We absolutely have demand among workers for
these services. I think, frankly, that it is a failure of
political will. It is really incumbent upon Congress to provide
those resources.
Let me add one additional statistic to the ones that you
cited, all of which are exactly on point. Among the countries
that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 28 of them, we are second-to-last in public
investment per GDP. Mexico is the only country that does worse.
We are behind Latvia, Estonia, and Poland in our investment in
workforce development.
So I agree with the import of your question. We need to do
dramatically more to invest in these things in order for
workers to get the training they need. They can't finance it
themselves.
Ms. Adams. Right. Thank you very much.
One of the things that I have heard from our county
workforce boards in North Carolina is that there isn't enough
of a focus by state and local policymakers on finding work for
displaced workers and that the framework which gives youth
apprenticeships, needed skills, and training is not well-
aligned for that purpose, particularly since WIOA is
underfunded and not fully implemented.
Ms. Gattman, your State's Future of Work Task Force report
recommends supporting the workforce board's request for
additional funding for incumbent worker training. So can you
explain the focus on incumbent worker training? For example,
did the task force identify the lack of private-sector
investment in incumbent training? And what are the barriers to
that investment that make public investment necessary?
Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
So one of the things--it wasn't necessarily a lack of
private-sector investment in incumbent worker training, but the
task force did recognize that many States put money into--put a
lot of State money into this game and in a lot of flexible
ways, which allowed for some innovative approaches. Incumbent
worker training is a co-invested model. It is flexible to
employer needs. And then it ideally allows them to upskill
existing talent to sustain and scale growth.
This is then complemented--one of the things we have been
trying to do a lot more in our State--complementing this by a
backfill component, where our public systems can then help
those employers who are upskilling their employees find the
right talent to fill those often entry-level positions.
Some of the new technologies that can eliminate or greatly
reduce the need for skilled workers can also be of great
interest to businesses who struggle to fill positions. We did
find that in rural communities without adequate education and
training resources, technology can be a really enticing way to
address some of their workforce concerns.
So, you know, we want to create the right conditions for
businesses to upskill their workers, rather than choose to
automate those jobs, to address recruitment or retention
issues. So we believe public funding can definitely make a
difference there, but it certainly should have a co-investment
model of some sort so there is employer participation.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much.
Let me move quickly. Mr. Markell, why has employers'
investment in worker training and skill development decreased?
What can be done to change employers' incentives to invest in
their workers?
Mr. Markell. Boy, that is the gazillion-dollar question in
a lot of respects, because unions really go hard at employers,
trying to bargain money for training programs. They understand
why training is important to their career. And the
understanding that people cannot pay for their own training,
that they don't have the information they need to decide where
they should be trained to work, they should try to be trained,
really points to the idea that we need public investment in
this area. If we are going to put everybody on a level playing
field, we have got to meet people where they are, and that is
going to take cash.
Ms. Adams. Great. Thank you very much.
And, Madam Chairman, I am out of time, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member
Smucker, for this important hearing on the future of work.
This is not a question of, will displacement happen? The
question is, when will it happen? And when it does happen, we
need to be prepared to provide the American workers with
resources to help them during what will inevitably be a hard
time for workers and their families.
In 2007, we experienced the worst economic recession since
the Great Depression. And in Riverside, California, my
district, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 14.4 percent
in 2010. This was common throughout the country. In some
months, there were as many as 800,000 jobs lost. I am sure we
all remember that time.
Mr. Harris, when you assumed your role as Deputy Secretary
at the Labor Department in 2009, you had inherited the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. I don't need to
tell you what a heavy toll displacement during a recession can
exact on workers, their families, communities, and the economy.
Your job was to get millions of people back to work. You
had certain tools to work with back then, including existing
workforce development laws, unemployment insurance, and, of
course, the Recovery Act. The efforts of the Obama
administration over its 8 years put us on an upward trajectory
of job growth which continues to this day.
But the next recession, while unpredictable, we can
reasonably assume it is going to happen. So, Mr. Harris, what
changes should policymakers be making to our workforce system
today to prepare for the next recession in order to both avert
displacement to the greatest possible extent and to adequately
address displacement when it does occur?
Mr. Harris. Well, Congressman, you are exactly right,
recessions don't just temporarily throw people out of jobs;
they permanently destroy a large number of jobs, and workers
are dislocated and don't have any place to go back to. They
need time and they need income so that they can acquire the
skills and knowledge that they need and that they can do the
job search that they need to be able to do.
They need programs that will quickly and efficiently and
effectively move them into new demand jobs in their economy.
And they also need help understanding which jobs they should
get into and what training and credentials they need in order
to get into those jobs.
And let me just say, your reference to the Recovery Act, I
think, is very important. President Obama's Recovery Act did
exactly what was needed. It doubled the money that the Labor
Department had for WIOA programs and the Wagner-Peyser
Employment Service. It provided extended unemployment
compensation. It created the TAACCCT grants that I was talking
about before. We need all of those things in place for the next
recession.
Let me also say, we don't have to say that there is a
skills gap to say that we need job training. There is no skills
gap. That is a false argument. And people are pointing to the
JOLTS study to show that there is a skills gap. That is not
what that study shows.
If there was a skills gap, we would see dramatically
increasing real wages, including in the industries that
complain the most that they can't find workers. We are not
seeing that. We would see employers dramatically increasing
training and investment in job training. We are not seeing
that. We would see them buying labor-saving devices. Business
investment is down in the United States.
We would see them demanding that their current workers
increase their number of hours worked. That is not happening.
We are not seeing median or average hours worked increasing.
And there are 4 million involuntary part-time workers in the
United States right now. They want to work full-time. Their
employers are not employing them full-time. That is not what
happens when you have a skills shortage.
So I really dislike this argument that there is a skills
gap, because it suggests that it is workers' fault. If only
they would get the training, everything would be just fine. It
is not workers' fault. It is the kind of displacement that you
were talking about, the dislocation that doesn't just happen
from recessions, it happens from multiple causes. And that is
what we need to be prepared for now and in preparation for the
next recession.
Mr. Takano. Given that answer, what tools can Congress
provide to state and local lawmakers that will--or what tools
can we generally, I mean, not just with the State and local
lawmakers, but what tools can we avail policymakers out there
to avert the brunt of a recession?
Mr. Harris. They need a lot more money. They need the
availability of Pell grants, but they need more money in that
system. They need a lot more money in the WIOA system.
They need help from us to mandate credential transparency.
We need a radical transparency movement in credentials so that
the bad credentials, the useless credentials that workers are
buying that aren't leading anywhere can drop out of the system.
And we need a program like the TAACCCT program, not just
organized around climate change, but organized much more
broadly than that so that we can bring employers and training
providers together to build the programs that we need for
workers to get the skills for in-demand jobs in their
communities.
Mr. Takano. Madam Chair, might I ask one more question, or
should I yield back?
Chairwoman Davis. I think we are just going to go on to the
next--
Mr. Takano. Okay. I will yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Davis. Yeah. Thank you very much.
We now turn to the ranking chair of the subcommittee, Mr.
Smucker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Professor Harris, in your written testimony--I would like
to, sort of, understand your view on the labor outlook, because
it is different than Mr. Paretti's view. I am going to come to
Mr. Paretti as well. But you say that you see no evidence of
loss of employment triggered by new technologies like
artificial intelligence. You do not believe that there will be
a massive displacement. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Harris. No. My argument is that the jobs apocalypse
that people talk about coming from AI, where we will see a
decline in total employment in the United States, I don't
believe we are going to see a decline in total employment.
I think there is no question that AI and other
technologies, along with a long list of other causes, cause
displacement to workers, so I think Mr. Paretti and I largely
agree. I may not put as much emphasis on--
Mr. Smucker. So you don't see a decline in employment; you
just see a change in the type of employment.
Mr. Harris. Right. Well, I see workers being thrown out of
jobs, but I don't see total employment in the economy declining
because of AI. Some people are arguing that. I am not saying
Mr. Paretti is arguing that, but there are a lot of people
arguing that. I don't think it is true.
Mr. Smucker. Yeah.
Mr. Paretti, you mentioned in your testimony several times
that 85 percent of all jobs that will exist in 2040 have not
yet been created.
Mr. Paretti. Certainly a substantial number, yes.
Mr. Smucker. And so I think maybe you are saying the same
thing in a different way. But you also say that the situation
is not necessarily as dire--
Mr. Paretti. Right.
Mr. Smucker.--as the statistics may lead us to believe. So
I just wonder if you could expand on that a little bit.
Mr. Paretti. Sure. Happy to.
And I will note, you know, damn it, Seth, I was looking to
have a fight with you. It is not an Ed and Labor Committee
hearing without a donnybrook, but we keep agreeing.
I don't think--I wholeheartedly--we are not looking at the
jobs apocalypse, where, oh, my goodness, overnight we are going
to have all of these folks who have nothing. I do think, if we
don't prepare for it, we risk that possibility. You know, the
number is great, but, at the same time, you will be seeing
increased opportunities. Total employment will increase. The
type of work will be different, in some instances.
You know, easy examples: In hotels now, you might no longer
have someone who--more and more, particularly in big hotels,
you have check-in kiosks where you can--beep, beep, beep, beep.
You don't have to stand in the line. They give you your room
key, and you are all set. So you maybe need fewer folks working
the check-in desk.
What you need more of, particularly if you are now able to
service more guests at your hotel, are folks in the concierge
office or folks in the guest services offices--higher-skilled
positions, more human-focused, more human-facing, skills that
can be readily attained. You may not have them if currently
your job is checking in folks and only using that system, but
you certainly can attain those skills.
And if your employer is good, they are going to want to
work with you to attain those skills. I would rather--
Mr. Smucker. Sure.
Mr. Paretti.--take an employee who I know has done good
work in this position and train them in--
Mr. Smucker. That leads me--and I am sorry, I only have 2
more minutes. So it does lead me to my next question. Maybe it
is more of a comment.
You know, I have a little trouble with the narrative in the
hearing today that the Federal Government is really the entity
that is meant to solve this problem. Like, we should certainly
be part of that solution; we should be looking ahead to try and
understand what is going to happen and make sure that we have
policies in place that provide the best pathway for employers
to change jobs or to enter the workforce for the first time.
But I believe in free enterprise. I believe that our
capitalist system has a way of addressing needs and has done so
for many, many decades.
So I guess my question to you, Mr. Paretti--and if we have
time, we will allow others to answer it as well, but--what is
the role of the private sector?
I know that a lot of businesses are investing in their
employees. So, for instance, Chairwoman Foxx mentioned earlier
a company. I know that Uber recently--I just learned they
provide access to fully funded education to more than 250,000
drivers. Starbucks does--
Mr. Paretti. Sure.
Mr. Smucker.--a similar kind of thing. There are businesses
all over.
What is the role of the private sector, the business world,
in ensuring that employees or that workers are ready to meet
the jobs that will be coming down the pike?
Mr. Paretti. Sure. A couple of thoughts there.
First, insofar as, you know, employers are job creators and
you need a workforce to do them, it is in your economic self-
interest and best interest to attract and retain a talented
workforce.
You mentioned Uber, and they allow drivers a certain
credit. I understand that is actually even transferable. If I
want to work part-time and be driving for Uber so that I can
give these credits to my child or to my spouse or something,
that is something they also do.
I wholeheartedly agree--and I think Ms. Gattman here--and
her work is great testimony--this is not a top-down solution. I
don't think that the Federal Government should be the ones to
say, ``Here is how we are going to fix this, and we are going
to push this down onto you.'' I think they can foster
innovation. I think they can remove, you know, roadblocks along
the way and foster a climate.
I recommend in my testimony, I discuss something called the
AI Jobs Act, which has broad, bipartisan support and really, I
think, an appropriate role for the Federal Government, which is
to say: Okay, what can we learn--we have the resources to learn
here and to, you know, give folks information that they can
then take on the local level, on the State level.
The Congresswoman who left recently said, you know, too
often the States aren't doing it. I think the States are doing
better than the feds. And I think, in some instances, locals
are doing better than the States. Not in Washington.
But I think that all of those are things that we should be
fostering. And that is where you all and where the Federal
Government and where Congress, I think, can help us most.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I now turn to Chairman Scott, the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank our witnesses. This has been very
helpful.
And I will start with questions to Ms. Gattman.
The WIOA boards should be in the middle of this. Can you
tell us what the WIOA boards are doing in terms of forecasting
future job needs?
And particularly they are relevant because that forecast
would focus on the local job needs, where the jobs will
actually be needed. Could you talk about that a little bit?
Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you, Chairman.
So one of the things that we work really closely with our
partner agency, the Employment Security Department, we don't
always know what credentials are in demand, so that is one
factor. But we are using States' unemployment insurance data to
determine which occupations are in demand.
And so, with this information, the State provides what is
called our Demand/Decline List. And that is set up by region,
and it shows not only which occupations are in demand but also
how much they pay in particular areas of the State.
Understanding which occupations are in demand, of course,
allows our State residents to use a program that we have that
the workforce board--it is our website Career Bridge, which
allows them to find the education and training that they need
to find that particular job.
Career Bridge is a public-facing website. We had over 7
million page views last year. So, you know, that is something--
we really promote that as an option for anyone looking for
particular education and training opportunities to find which
occupations are in demand and then find those local training
opportunities.
Mr. Scott. Yeah. Are most WIOA boards doing this?
Ms. Gattman. No. Our Career Bridge website is actually
pretty unique in the Nation for the amount of detail it has,
because it also provides that performance-results aspect,
where, for over half the programs, we can give you performance
results of how the participants fared in the various programs.
Mr. Scott. Now, one of the concerns we have is we may be
training--the number of people who are being trained for the
jobs of the future may be totally insufficient to address the
need. I mean, are we training thousands, where the need is in
the millions? Are we anywhere close to addressing the need?
Ms. Gattman. You know, I will say that is one of those
issues where, you know, we just don't know. The future of work
is evolving so quickly that, you know, we are all doing our
best to forecast what we are going to see and what jobs we need
training for.
And, you know, some of that is hampered by the lack of data
that we have available. And I spoke about occupational data as
one area where we do have a gap. And knowing that information
would allow us to better forecast what is available.
Mr. Scott. Several of you have mentioned the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Community College Career Training, and we
have also talked about the fact that students aren't able to
fully fund their transition.
Can somebody talk about the cost of the program, how it is
funded, and who pays the tuition, and how successful they are?
Mr. Harris. The TAACCCT program was $2 billion over 4
years, spent out over a total--until 2018. It is all spent down
now. It was capacity-building money. It was not supposed to pay
for intuition.
So it created programs at community colleges and
universities in partnership with employers. It built curricula,
hired instructors, learned about how to work with employers,
included employers in the development of those programs. And as
I said earlier in the hearing, extremely successful. But now
there is no more money.
Mr. Scott. Well, how do you measure success?
Mr. Harris. Measured success based on credential
attainment, employment outcomes, program completion. All of
those went up with the program.
And, also, there was a qualitative study done that showed
that employers who were involved in the TAACCCT program had
much, much, much higher-quality engagement with their community
colleges than they would have otherwise.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Markell, you mentioned the PRO Act. How
would passage of the PRO Act help job policy?
Mr. Markell. I am sorry. Would you--
Mr. Scott. You mentioned the Protecting the Right to
Organize Act. How would passage of that help developing job
policy?
Mr. Markell. So, when workers have a voice and when they
have institutional power, they are able to achieve better
adjustments and better outcomes, whether it is through
upskilling of current jobs or trying to move on to new jobs and
find retraining money and programs that will allow them to be
more valued in the marketplace.
Without an institutional voice, workers are out there on
their own with not enough information, with not enough
organized power to effect their situation. So the passage of
the PRO Act opens up all kinds of possibilities. The passage of
the PRO Act will make more space on climate than anything we
could do, because it will assure workers that the next job they
have is going to be a good job.
It is an extremely important piece of legislation that will
rebalance the labor market and give workers a chance to improve
their situation.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from Nevada, Mrs. Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here.
This is a particularly important issue for me, as I
represent Las Vegas and Henderson area, and Las Vegas happens
to be the U.S. city most at risk of losing jobs to automation.
And, in fact, according to a University of Redlands study, in
the next 20 years, 65 percent of the city's jobs could be
automated.
Mr. Markell, in a recent report of the AFL-CIO's Commission
on the Future of Work and Unions, it recognizes just how
central workers of color and women are to the future of the
Nation's workforce and labor movement. People of color will
constitute the majority of the U.S. population by 2045, and, in
just 5 years, women are predicted to make up more than half of
all union members.
A number of organizations have conducted research that
demonstrates that workers of color are more vulnerable to
displacement, particularly from automation. Similarly, research
shows that women workers are more concentrated in those jobs
that are exposed to technological changes than men, such as
cashiers, secretaries, and bookkeepers.
The pain of displacement for these workers will be
compounded by the preexisting racial and gender wage gaps they
already face.
In my home State, unions have negotiated with casinos,
taking into account the potential effects of automation on
workers.
And I would like to ask you a two-part question, Mr.
Markell. First, what particular protections against
displacement and its harms can the labor movement offer to
workers of color and women? And, secondly, what strategies have
the AFL-CIO and other labor groups adopted to better address
the causes of displacement that affect these groups of workers?
Mr. Markell. Thank you, Congresswoman.
As you know, Las Vegas is home to one of the premier labor
management training organizations in the country, the Culinary
Academy of Las Vegas. They are a partner of the Working for
America Institute.
And UNITE HERE!, the union--it is Local 226 there--has done
exemplary bargaining, both with the casinos and with Marriott,
around advance notice and upstream involvement of the workers
in deciding how technology change is going to be implemented in
the workplace.
And with those workforces being, in both cases, majority-
women and majority-people-of-color, it is that worker voice
that gives them a fair shake. It is really important to avoid
displacement by making sure that we are understanding how the
tasks at these workplaces are changing as technology comes in.
With the organized voice that UNITE HERE! provides, with
the contract provisions that are available to make sure that
the workforce is informed and has a chance at training, we do
the best to avoid displacement.
Union contracts are the best protection against disparities
in the workplace. For example, the wage gap that women suffer.
There is no wage gap in a union contract. It says, you do job
X, you get pay Y. It doesn't matter, race, creed, or color, who
you are.
And so, for workers to be able to understand that, when
they have a collective voice, they are on a level playing field
with the entire workforce, that is the--it just means so much
to people in their jobs.
Secondly, the building trades are a great example. They are
continually scanning the environment for new technologies. They
are almost paranoid about understanding that they need to be on
the cutting edge of whatever new technologies are coming in.
I always give the example of the IBEW. Solar power is
gaining in the United States. In Las Vegas, across the
Southeast, solar is become increasingly competitive. For years,
the IBEW has incorporated solar technician training into its
electrician's apprenticeship so that, as you are becoming a
journeyperson electrician, you become skilled and valuable in
all assets of solar installation.
That is the kind of incumbent worker protection that can
prevent job loss, that is on the cutting edge of technology,
and that we are making investments in, over $1.5 billion a year
in private investments, in the building trades system.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
Thank you, and I yield.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
And we will now go to Mr. Trone, the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member
Smucker, for holding this hearing today.
I want to talk about an issue that is very important to my
constituents: mass layoffs and plant closures.
Luke Paper Mill was the center of life in Luke, Maryland,
for the last 131 years. When the mill closed in June, it left
675 hardworking men and women of the United Steelworkers
without a job and affected nearly 2,000 others employed by that
business in the community.
This summer, I learned firsthand the shortcomings of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, or the WARN Act, with the
closing of Luke. This is why I joined Congressman Tim Ryan in
introducing legislation that would strengthen the WARN Act to
give workers and communities the notice they need to best
prepare for when the unimaginable happens.
The Fair Warning Act would increase the number of companies
required to give employers impending notice and also require
employers an additional 30 days' notice prior to mass layoffs
and direct the State to establish a rapid response committee so
employees can quickly get training, support services they need
to prepare for the job loss.
Mr. Markell, how can we better advance notice site closings
and mass layoffs--how can that better notice serve impacted
workers?
And, also, what are some of the typical benefits and
services available for those impacted by site closings and mass
layoffs? And talk about why they are so important.
Mr. Markell. Thank you, Congressman.
That paper mill closure is a tragedy. I met the president
of that Steelworkers local at the Maryland State AFL-CIO
convention.
Rapid response is--of course we need better notice and we
need plans for workplaces that we think are at risk. That paper
mill was threatened by foreign competition, unfair competition,
in many respects. And so fixing our trade laws is a big part of
what we need to do.
We also need to identify facilities that are at risk way
ahead of when we think that they might be actually faced with a
business decision. So, in the paper industry in the United
States, there have been closures all over the United States for
many, many years. And so it was predictable that when a new
owner came in there was going to be a cost squeeze and that
investment could be lacking.
If we go upstream way before we think that there might be a
business decision, we can address the competitive position of
that facility. We can help them afford new capital investments,
if that is what is needed. And I think that, had we taken a
look at that mill a year, a year and a half ago, we could have
made moves that would put it in a position to stay open.
Mr. Trone. Thank you.
Dr. Harris, many former Luke Mill employees are still
unemployed and trying to get back up on their feet. I was glad
to see in your testimony discussion today around intensive
services, or what WOIA refers to as individual career services,
which include comprehensive assessments, job search activities,
development of career service plans, one-on-one career
counseling, case management, et cetera.
Can you speak to why these services are so important and
what evidence we have to show that they are a good return on
investment?
Mr. Harris. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
Let me say, there is a lot of evidence that they work.
There was a gold standard study done for the Labor Department.
We hired Mathematica and some of its partners to do a study. It
showed that intensive services increased median annual earnings
between $3,700 and $7,100 for workers, mostly because it gets
them into jobs much more quickly.
And, also, there is a lot of evidence from the Reemployment
Eligibility Assessments, which is in the UI system, which are
now called RESEAs, we did a series of studies, three studies,
that showed that they also work. It reduces the length of time
of unemployment. It reduces the amount of unemployment benefits
that are collected. Workers get into jobs much, much more
quickly.
So I think that intensive services should be available to
absolutely everyone, not limited to people who are unemployed,
not limited to people who are on the verge of being thrown out
of jobs. It should be available to incumbent workers. It should
be available to people who are entering into the labor market.
It is for people who are out of the labor market, to help them
get back into the labor market. It really helps to give them a
map through a very complicated field of jobs and credentials
and skills so that they can figure out what is going to work
for me.
Mr. Trone. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
I wanted to just remind all the Members that we have until
January 6 to submit materials for the record.
Chairwoman Davis. And I certainly want to thank all of our
witnesses today.
What we have heard is very valuable. I think there is, you
know, a lot of good work that has been done, tremendously so.
And on the other hand, as I said earlier, sometimes we have to
kind of rethink, because we are in a new time that really
requires a different perspective.
And, at this point, I wanted to recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member for his closing statement.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you. And I would like to thank each of
the witnesses as well for being here today to talk about this
important topic.
I think it is clear. And in answer to my question, you
clarified that we all know that the economy and the needs of
the labor market are changing, and so the future of work will
require different skills than are required today.
So it is a reality that I think workers, employers,
families face every day. And we certainly don't want to slow
down innovation. We want to continue to allow those jobs to be
created. We want the economy or technology to bring those
changes, but we also must work to ensure that pathways and
opportunities for those facing displacement, they exist, that
they will have the ability to acquire skills that will allow
them to continue to be competitive.
And with the skills gap growing by the day, 7 million
unfilled jobs across the Nation, what better time now than to
be thinking of--I know you disagree with that one--but what
better time than now to be thinking about how we can help
workers who will be faced with those conditions.
I mentioned earlier, and if I had more time in my
questioning, I would have said it as well. I really believe
that much of the change that occurs happens organically and
naturally, with the investment of labor, with the investment of
businesses who benefit from their employees gaining those new
skills. But I also think there is a role for the Federal
Government at a time that a plant closes, at a time when there
is a particular need.
And so I think this is the beginning of really a
conversation that we could have about what the Federal
Government's role is and then how we can be most effective in
that.
So I would love to have more time, and I am sure we will
continue this discussion in the future, but thank you to each
of you for being here to discuss this important topic, and
thank you for scheduling this.
Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
Again, thank you for your contributions here today. We
appreciate it. And I think I particularly acknowledge that in
many cases we have far more agreement than disagreement on
this. And sometimes it is a matter of approach and
acknowledging that, clearly, government can't do it all, but
government does have the power and the resources to be able to
look ahead, hopefully, and be able to adjust and be flexible in
that regard, in terms of the needs of the workforce, and
acknowledging that, regardless of the cause of the
displacement, there is still a need out there.
And I think it is particularly important when we know that
the lack of action hampers American workers' and businesses'
ability to really remain competitive. You all talked about the
fact that, you know, we are not just competing against
ourselves, one State against another, but it is against the
world in many cases. And if we don't act, if we don't
acknowledge that need, then we really are not being true, I
think, to the very workers who make our country run, who help
our country to be as worthy in many ways as it can be,
especially for our families, for our workers throughout the
country. So we know that is critical.
You all mention the investments in workforce development
that match our dire need are important, that we can reshape
workforce programs, and that we also want to make sure that
people have the ability to retain the skills that are in
demand.
One of the things that we did not mention is the fact that
many women, particularly, who were assistants, executive
assistants throughout our country, administrative assistants,
are seen to be--will be one of the largest groups that is in
need of education, training, and I think creativity,
imagination, in trying to understand how we can be certain that
they don't lose the ability to contribute to our economy in the
future. And that is important as well.
So thank you for coming together to talk about
strengthening the future, not only of our workplaces, but our
communities, our economy, and certainly our country. I
appreciate it.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]