Washington insiders have remained surprisingly optimistic about the odds Congress might soon pass legislation on workforce education, particularly a bipartisan bid to update the $3B federal workforce system.
The bill to overhaul the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act has moved forward quickly. And while it has critics and lukewarm overall support, backers say the legislation is a worthy compromise that would make improvements to the fragmented and underfunded WIOA system while providing more accountability.
However, a discussion draft the Senate released in June has kicked up a ruckus that seems likely to nix the bill until after the turbulent election year. The disagreement is about new language requiring that WIOA funding recipients disclose that they comply with all applicable federal labor laws (page 370 in the draft).
One coalition of business groups calls the provision overly sweeping and undiscriminating, arguing that a minor violation could prevent a company from engaging under WIOA. Another consortium, the Skills First Coalition, which includes large corporations and higher education providers, told Senate leaders that the requirement could have “devastating consequences” in attracting and retaining employers to partner with the public workforce system.
“Employers are so important in job training. They’re the essence,” says Tamar Jacoby, a journalist who works with the Jobs and Careers Coalition. “The last thing we want to do is to drive them away.”
The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among a group of 19 trade organizations that oppose the language, Nick Niedzwiadek reported for Politico. They called it “blacklisting” in a letter to leaders of the Senate HELP Committee and argued that WIOA’s current requirements adequately punish providers for intentionally supplying inaccurate information or committing substantial violations of the law.
“These provisions would ultimately penalize Americans needing access to high-quality employer-led skills development programs and work-based learning opportunities,” wrote the Skills First Coalition.
Observers point to past flaps over similar language about labor law disclosures. Some business organizations worry that unions could use the provision during organizing campaigns and collective bargaining negotiations.
“It’s a total nonstarter for business,” says Jacoby.
A very different take comes from Mary Alice McCarthy, a senior director at New America’s Center on Education and Labor. She says the language is a simple disclosure requirement on basic protections for workers under federal labor laws.
“We have the right to know if employers that receive direct subsidies obey the law,” says McCarthy, who calls the backlash from business groups the “perfect distillation of everything that’s wrong with WIOA and this approach to workforce development.”
Employers hold a majority of seats on workforce boards and are essentially in charge of the federal workforce system, McCarthy says. The “dramatic imbalance” in the WIOA power structure means businesses are wary of any attempt to add accountability. As for why the provision was added, she says more people are paying attention to worker rights these days.
“We need to step back and have a conversation about this system and what it’s for,” says McCarthy.
The AFL-CIO made similar points in a recent letter to Senate leaders. Finding common ground is difficult with bipartisan legislation, wrote the largest federation of U.S. unions. But the committee shouldn’t compromise on the need for basic labor law protections, or on accountability for recipients of federal funds.
Likewise, the federation said it was misleading to suggest that the disputed language would discourage employer participation in the workforce system.
“Taxpayer funds should be used to prepare workers for good jobs, not subsidize low-road employers,” said the AFL-CIO. “We urge the Committee to continue an approach that puts workers and their welfare at the center of federal workforce development policy.”
The influence of labor unions and workers on workforce development systems should equal that of employers, the Service Employees International Union said in a letter to Senate leaders. Employers should be required to adhere to labor laws, which “are central to the just and fair treatment of U.S. workers,” the SEIU said.
All hope is not lost for advocates of the WIOA update. Strong bipartisan support for the House bill adds weight as the Senate mulls the legislation, says Otto Katt, the workforce practice group chair at Lewis-Burke Associates, a Washington-based government relations firm. But the clock is ticking.
“The legislative calendar will make the Senate’s consideration of WIOA more and more precarious,” Katt says.