Living Wage, Diversity to Form Apprenticeship Program ‘Roadmap’

The Biden administration should prioritize giving federal funding opportunities to job training programs that pay living wages and meet diversity goals, a special advisory committee said.

The recommendations will be used as a “roadmap” by the Biden administration ahead of its plans to issue a proposal in June to update regulations governing the National Apprenticeship System, according to Brent Parton, acting head of the US Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration.

“There’s a lot of reports that get produced in the federal government and they take up real estate on shelves,” Parton told members of the federal Advisory Committee on Apprenticeships during a meeting in Chicago. “This report is not that case.”

The committee’s new vision for the program—billed as a pathway to the middle class and union jobs—comes as the Biden administration grapples with expanding its registered apprenticeship model into new industries, and getting more women and minorities on board.

The need for skilled trades workers has also become more acute amid the federal government’s infrastructure and green energy investments.

Quality Seal

The committee report, released May 10, calls on the DOL to create a new “Quality Seal of Approval” for registered apprenticeships that recruit workers who reflect the demographics of the local area, pay wages at a certain level above the federal poverty line, and graduate a certain number of apprentices.

Registered apprenticeship programs with the seal would be first in line for federal cash, and contractors that hire apprentices from these “quality” programs would also get preference when bidding on federal projects.

The new model outlined by the group echoes efforts already made by the Biden administration to offer green energy tax credits to companies that hire registered apprentices, and to prioritize federal contracts toward businesses that abide by certain “good jobs” principles.

“There are outcomes that you can’t require a program to meet, but you can certainly incentivize,” said Erin Johansson, research director at Jobs With Justice and a member of the advisory committee.

“If programs don’t feel like they can meet these quality standards. Well, that’s okay. Not every program is going to,” she added. “But those programs then shouldn’t be getting those big federal grants to expand if you’re not able to be a quality program. We don’t want the federal government to subsidize poor quality programs.”

‘Living Wage’ Debate

But construction industry groups complained they weren’t given ample notice to provide input on the recommendations, and the committee’s documents weren’t made public until after the deadline to participate in the meeting had passed.

“It is impossible for public stakeholders to present feedback in person or virtually to ACA members before their final vote, which is likely to shape forthcoming DOL regulations and dramatic changes to the National Apprenticeship System,” according to a letter from the Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Utility Contractors Association, and other groups.

In particular, the construction groups were concerned that the committee recommended that wages for graduates be as much as 123% higher than the median construction tradesperson wages in some parts of the country.

The committee said family-sustaining or living wages are essential to the apprenticeship systems’ growth because they act as an incentive for apprentices to stay in the multi-year programs and to ensure that underrepresented groups “do not continue to be tracked into low-paying, often dead-end jobs through apprenticeship.”

But, members of the advisory panel disagreed on whether to attach the “living wage” provisions to the final recommendations, with some representatives expressing concern that they wouldn’t get enough buy-in from employers.

Initially the panel suggested using “MIT’s living wage calculator” as the standard rate apprenticeship programs should pay in order to receive the special quality seal.

Ultimately, the committee voted to define “living wage” as “200% of the federal poverty level for a family of three, adjusted by a geographic cost-of-living differential for regions where the cost of living exceeds the federal average.”

Committee leaders said individuals who want to provide more input on the living wage recommendations could do so during the public comment period that will accompany the DOL’s upcoming apprenticeship rulemaking.

DOL Proposal

The advisory panel, which includes representatives from both industry groups and unions, has met at least seven times to discuss and develop solutions to issues plaguing the registered apprenticeship model, including the lack of representation among minorities and women, as well as the programs’ concentration in the construction trades.

President Joe Biden reinstated the group early in his administration to gather feedback and recommendations from unions, employers, and other public groups on the registered apprenticeship system. The previous committee’s charter had expired during the Trump administration and wasn’t renewed.

The committee’s work concluded just weeks before the DOL is due to release a proposal to “strengthen, expand, modernize, and diversify” the program, according to the latest regulatory agenda.

The changes will address “worker protections and equity,” the quality of registered apprenticeships, and state governance rules over the program, the administration said.

The advisory committee emphasized that its role is “advisory and consultative” and that it would be up to the DOL to implement the recommendations.