Trump II is spending big on pay-to-train incentives that seem to answer a lot of employer gripes about workforce spending. Will big employers live up to their side of the bargain?
Nick, as always, so appreciative of your reporting. Three thoughts on this: First, there are MANY ways to think about these pay-to-train models and I wouldn't necessarily assume there is a cookie cutter here based on a few examples. We've encouraged the Department to show flexibility so that it can test different models -- we'll see what they do with that free advice!
I also think your AI research assistant could stand some additional training. In fact, there are lots of small- to medium-scale models at the state level, most prominently is California's Apprenticeship Innovation Fund. So, I am not sure this is as exotic as you suggest. Internationally, we've looked at a range of models as well. Check out our paper at https://workforcerealigned.org/chapters/can-pay-for-success-scale-apprenticeships-in-the-us/.
Finally, we wouldn't be quite so literal about where the money goes. Just because an employer's (or sponsor's) name is on the pay-for-training check, doesn't mean that an employer can't use that money for such activities as paying for services from intermediaries, providing employee supports, or paying community colleges for training.
I hit send on this edition thinking, “So, yeah, the first comment is going to be John Colborn sharing an example of an apprenticeship fund that I didn’t look at despite running this through a Robot** fact check and using my expensively trained research brain to dig around American programs.” Alas. As always, I value your feedback on this stuff.
I hope the Administration takes your free advice—and employers do, too. I would be shocked if the Trump team at DOL didn’t debate many of the issues I discuss here, but the Trump White House filter on workforce ideas turns out stuff that can be pretty rigid and cookie cutter at the end of the day. Speaking from experience, whatever money gets spent needs to be spent in a way that adheres to a certain type of conservative orthodoxy in public policy that is beyond even what you might see in bright red states. To the extent I would draw a distinguishing line between this and California (beyond the nitty gritty of how and when payments go out), I think it’s that wrinkle and that this is so laser focused on the employer side of the conversation—something that itself is a byproduct of the Trump White House factor.
On the employer front, I actually cut a couple sentences about spending on the things you talked about. Ultimately, though, I think this has to get through very spreadsheet-y thinking from corporate decisionmakers. Just as there are corporate execs who really seem to miss the nuance as to what apprentices can “contribute,” I think they might not see the bargain in these incentives compared to the cost of hiring an apprentice who they see as not even a “real” employee (something I REALLY don’t agree with). Maybe this approach helps break them out of that rigid thinking. I really hope it does.
**In The Robot’s defense, the other search tools I use didn’t turn this up, either, which the annoying thorough portion of me finds very frustrating. My best guess is it’s branding. All these funds have names that are juuuust different enough, something I certainly don’t help here by using “pay to train.”
Nick, as always, so appreciative of your reporting. Three thoughts on this: First, there are MANY ways to think about these pay-to-train models and I wouldn't necessarily assume there is a cookie cutter here based on a few examples. We've encouraged the Department to show flexibility so that it can test different models -- we'll see what they do with that free advice!
I also think your AI research assistant could stand some additional training. In fact, there are lots of small- to medium-scale models at the state level, most prominently is California's Apprenticeship Innovation Fund. So, I am not sure this is as exotic as you suggest. Internationally, we've looked at a range of models as well. Check out our paper at https://workforcerealigned.org/chapters/can-pay-for-success-scale-apprenticeships-in-the-us/.
Finally, we wouldn't be quite so literal about where the money goes. Just because an employer's (or sponsor's) name is on the pay-for-training check, doesn't mean that an employer can't use that money for such activities as paying for services from intermediaries, providing employee supports, or paying community colleges for training.
I hit send on this edition thinking, “So, yeah, the first comment is going to be John Colborn sharing an example of an apprenticeship fund that I didn’t look at despite running this through a Robot** fact check and using my expensively trained research brain to dig around American programs.” Alas. As always, I value your feedback on this stuff.
I hope the Administration takes your free advice—and employers do, too. I would be shocked if the Trump team at DOL didn’t debate many of the issues I discuss here, but the Trump White House filter on workforce ideas turns out stuff that can be pretty rigid and cookie cutter at the end of the day. Speaking from experience, whatever money gets spent needs to be spent in a way that adheres to a certain type of conservative orthodoxy in public policy that is beyond even what you might see in bright red states. To the extent I would draw a distinguishing line between this and California (beyond the nitty gritty of how and when payments go out), I think it’s that wrinkle and that this is so laser focused on the employer side of the conversation—something that itself is a byproduct of the Trump White House factor.
On the employer front, I actually cut a couple sentences about spending on the things you talked about. Ultimately, though, I think this has to get through very spreadsheet-y thinking from corporate decisionmakers. Just as there are corporate execs who really seem to miss the nuance as to what apprentices can “contribute,” I think they might not see the bargain in these incentives compared to the cost of hiring an apprentice who they see as not even a “real” employee (something I REALLY don’t agree with). Maybe this approach helps break them out of that rigid thinking. I really hope it does.
**In The Robot’s defense, the other search tools I use didn’t turn this up, either, which the annoying thorough portion of me finds very frustrating. My best guess is it’s branding. All these funds have names that are juuuust different enough, something I certainly don’t help here by using “pay to train.”