« SCOTUS Moving Starboard Through 2016? | staleync's Blog | Isn't It Ironic (aka Instant Karma) »

Getting Serious About Job Retraining


The New York Times focused on a Department of Labor study that calls into question the efficacy of job retraining programs. Here is the salient graf:

Tens of thousands of laid-off workers like Mr. Hutchins have turned to retraining as a lifeline. Yet for all the popularity of these government-financed programs, there are questions about whether they actually work, even as President Obama's stimulus plan directs $1.4 billion more to retraining and other services for people who have lost their jobs.

In Michigan, where the unemployment rate in May was 14.1 percent, the nation's highest, 78,000 people are enrolled in the state's No Worker Left Behind program and 7,800 are on the waiting list. At the Michigan Works job center here, where Mr. Hutchins applied for retraining money, the wait to attend an orientation session is up to two months.

Nonetheless, a little-noticed study the Labor Department released several months ago found that the benefits of the biggest federal job training program were "small or nonexistent" for laid-off workers. It showed little difference in earnings and the chances of being rehired between laid-off people who had been retrained and those who had not.

In interviews, the authors of the study and other economists cited several reasons that retraining might not be effective. Many workers who have lost their jobs are older and had spent their lives working in one industry. In need of a job right away, many pick relatively short training programs, which often have marginal benefits. Job retraining is also ineffective without job creation, a point made by several economists who have long cautioned against placing too much stock in it. Finally, workers trying to pick a new field cannot predict the future of the labor market, especially in a time of economic upheaval.

 

The reason I find this especially interesting is because back in 2001 I, along with hundreds of my co-workers, entered the life worker retraining. When the factory shutters you have four basic options:

1- Retire

2- Technical Diploma

3- Two-Year Degree

4- Find a New Job

 

In my experience, only a fraction chose option one. This makes since most working people are doing so because they can't afford to retire. A decent bloc chose option four, but the majority at least dipped their toes into the retraining waters.

Retraining looks very attractive to the newly unemployed. Not only can you learn a new trade or get an education, but you can also extend your unemployment benefits throughout retraining, in some cases up to two years.

The workers that tended to be most successful were those who entered technical training. This includes mechanics, truck drivers, nurses, and to some extent IT professionals. In most cases the pay rate was comparable to the previous jobs and the market in these fields was pretty competitive.

Where the biggest drop came was in those who headed to college. Some of the older workers had not entered a classroom in decades and a large overall percentage lacked even basic computer literacy. The majority dropped out without completing a semester and many others switched majors a few times before giving up. Very few of us, and mainly the younger bloc, completed the two-year degree.

Now that I have provided some background, let me get down to the nitty gritty.

First, retraining assumes an open labor market for the retrained workers. The jobs once available to these workers are drying up, many never to return. We need to provide grants for community colleges and technical schools who offer innovative curriculum such as alternative energy.

Second, retraining isn't a catch-all. Some people are better suited for certain fields. Instead of sending people out blindly into the retraining market into the hands of sometimes ill-equipped unemployment workers and community college advisers, there needs to be a resource to guide workers in the right direction. There should also be a greater availability of remedial courses for those who need basic skills but do not plan to enter full retraining.

Third, we need to adjust the unemployment system to extend benefits for those actively seeking work but unable to attend retraining. As it stands, a worker can be forced to sign up for courses he has no interest in completing just to gain a benefit extension. I don't believe this is widespread nor to I necessarily blame these folks for making the best of a flawed system. A simple extension option could prevent this.

Fourth, health coverage should be provided to workers during retraining. You get laid off with a family of four and your COBRA is going to cost more than your mortgage. It is hard to focus on education when the medical bills become overwhelming. Hopefully the upcoming health care reform will make this point moot, but I felt it worth mentioning.

Like the Labor report and the Times article, I concede that worker retraining is flawed. But it is necessary and can be fixed with a few adjustments. In the short-term this may be costly, but if it actually makes retraining a priority rather than a talking point everyone wins. We just can't go about it half-heartedly in the current job market or the negative results will worsen.

 

 

 


6 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

The problem is that there are no other jobs to go to whether or not you have the proper training. Our economy has collapsed. This is not a "recession" it is a long term depression. We don't have enough jobs to keep all the workers in this country employed. It is a crisis of major proportions and our alleged political leaders don't have a clue how to deal with it. That's why instead of dealing with this issue, the government chose to spend the last bit of our national credit recapitalizing the banks to make sure that the bankers don't have to go for job "re" training but instead get to continue to live lives of luxury and thievery on Wall Street.

user-pic

The difference between this recession and the recession of 1981-1982 is not in the fundamentals or the length of time it's gone on, or even the underlying cause (reduction in liquidity).

It's the memories of the people involved. People these days think of 1991 as being a terrible, terrible recession. It wasn't; it was a blip. Things have been so good, for so long, and we've been so "successful" in preventing recessions, that when the real thing comes along everyone gets very whiny very fast.

I agree with oleeb that the bushels of Washington money (our money) headed to Wall Street to shore up the financial sector are a travesty.

But this is America. Job retraining (and jobs themselves) aren't the government's problem. You need a job? Hit the bricks. Government shouldn't be "dealing with the issue", and certainly shouldn't be deciding what industries to retrain people in (How does government know where there will be jobs in your area? They don't.).

Job retraining is, mostly, an expensive failure. Providing blanket benefits regardless of the individual skills or talents of the unemployed who are subject to the program is a recipe for failure.

user-pic

When jobs exist job training does not fail. The point is that the jobs are not there. That is the fundamental problem and it must be addressed by the government. The attitude that says government shouldn't do anything about that is the same laissez faire attitude that wrecked the economy to begin with.

user-pic

First, I didn't suggest that government should do nothing; only that government is poorly situated to organize or provide effective job training, as that is not a traditional function it performs in this country.

Second, the economy isn't "wrecked", it is going through a long-overdue contraction and liquidation. We spent beyond our means for a long time, and now we are paying the price. Eventually, borrowers have to pay back their money. Unfortunately, our government appears to be attempting to simply replace private borrowing with public borrowing.

Third, a lack of jobs is not a problem, it is a symptom. Jobs (employees) are a necessary input to economic activity, not the purpose of economic activity. More economic activity is the answer, not government intervention to create or require make-work positions. More economic activity will be the obvious side effect of an eventual economic recovery, which would be the result of the end of the liquidation of bad debts... an event the government has been doing everything it can to put off.

We're all to blame for the situation; until recently it wasn't the government borrowing all that money.

user-pic

Technical and community colleges are frequently run by the government.

user-pic

Staley, this is a gooooood post. A little fact and a little experience thrown in.

We need more testimony from people with your background in this.

Leave a comment

staleync

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 16

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs TPM, Sullivan, Kos, BlueNC
  • Favorite Books Anything by Hunter S Thompson
  • Favorite Quotes Artie Lange, on his mother: “I can’t get her to relax, and you know, you meet rich people and they know how to relax. They’re great at it. I wish my mother skied or played tennis, or liked golfing or world travel, but she doesn’t. She likes cleaning tables with Pledge.”

Bio

B.S. in Criminal Justice, St. John's University. M.S. in Criminal Justice, Michigan State University - in progress.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address