WIB Labor Representative Survey Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2002, the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute, under a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, held a series of four regional training conferences for labor representatives serving on state and local workforce investment boards across the country.

Over 250 WIB union representatives from more than 40 states participated in the two-day conferences, which were designed to help labor representatives explore a common agenda for WIB activities and give state and regional colleagues an opportunity to come together and develop specific strategies for action.

The Institute conducted a survey of the WIB Labor Representatives who participated in these training sessions to learn more about who they are and what their experiences are with the WIA system in their areas. Their responses are the basis of this report, which describes who serves as WIB labor representatives, what they observe about the WIA system and what would assist them in better fulfilling their role on the boards. The survey form that was used is attached at the end of this report.

In perhaps its most significant finding, the survey showed strong interest among WIB labor representatives in serving more effectively on their boards and clearly identified the information they feel is necessary to do so. The findings contrast sharply with a survey taken by the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) of board Executive Directors and Board Business Chairpersons where the need for Board development was not seen as a major concern. The topics labor representatives identified as best-practice learning priorities have been incorporated into the Institute’s strategic agenda for high road workforce development and will be addressed at a national training conference for WIB labor representatives March 3-5.

Here is a summary of the survey’s other major findings:

• Central Labor Councils and State Federations of Labor nominated the vast majority of WIB labor representatives surveyed, as the law envisioned.
• Many WIB labor representatives bring strong workforce development experience, having served on their boards since their boards were created and many served in a similar position on their respective Private Industry Councils prior to the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.
• Providing a worker voice in local workforce development policy and representing the interests of organized labor are the reasons most WIB labor representatives cite for wanting to serve on the boards.
• Most boards hold only quarterly meetings. Less than one in five meets every month.
• Discussion at board meetings may still be focused more on operations than on strategies to improve workforce development, in contrast to the vision of WIA.
• The executive committees of many boards do not have worker representation.
• Many WIB labor representatives see agency staff as holding “the most power over workforce development decisions” in their communities, rather than those appropriately appointed to establish the strategic workforce development policy.
• More research is needed to determine what actions WIBs are taking regarding the development of local self-sufficiency standards and community audits.

Methodology
While some surveys were distributed and collected in advance of the training conferences, it became evident that administering the survey at the training conferences ensured a better return. Of the approximately 250 total attendees at the four regional training conferences, 50% completed surveys. In the future, the Institute will take advantage of its improved database of contact information to mail, fax and e-mail surveys to a significantly larger universe of labor representatives. Respondents included 108 labor representatives serving on local boards and 16 serving on state boards. Their responses are combined in this report.

58% of the survey respondents reported that that were full-time labor officials and 42% reported that they were not. Because it is more difficult for rank-and-file union members who serve on WIBs to attend training conferences, we believe this response over-represents full-time labor officials who serve as WIB labor representatives. We do not know how many of WIB labor representatives are rank-and-file members, nationally, but we do know that there are many. The Institute intends to do research to better determine this information as it has significance for the level of active participation by these worker representatives.

Note: The percentages presented in this report are rounded to the nearest whole number. In some instances, this may make total percentages equal greater or less than 100%.

SURVEY RESULTS

Who is Representing Labor on State and Local WIBs
Appropriate federations of labor nominated the WIB labor representatives who participated.

Union Affiliation of Labor Representatives
The survey asked labor representatives to identify their union affiliation in order to gauge the variety of union interest and involvement in the public workforce system as well as to determine the breadth of industrial/sectoral experience as reflected by the worker representatives in the system. The respondents self-identified as being affiliated with a broad spectrum of labor organizations including 22 International Unions. Among the responding representatives, a significant number identified themselves as being affiliated with state federations of labor or central labor councils or building trades councils. The full-time staff and elected officers representing these bodies bring a strong understanding of workforce needs, based on their cross-knowledge of industry in their communities and states. Because we know that central labor councils and state federation representatives are also members of international unions, we have increased our ongoing research to better determine the representation of international unions on WIBs for future reports both to DOL and to the international unions. It is also interesting to note that of the respondents to this survey, 19% identified their union affiliation as representing a building and construction trades union.

Note: Since completing this survey, the Institute has gathered information about union affiliation from more than 550 WIB labor representatives–about half of the estimated WIB labor representatives in the nation. Though not part of the survey, the results are relevant because they represent the most comprehensive survey of union representatives serving on WIBs. The 565 WIB labor representatives with identifiable union affiliations belong to 42 national or international unions. About half hold membership in a union that represents building and construction trade workers. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) had the largest percentage of WIB labor representatives, with nearly one in five WIB labor reps identifying themselves as members of IBEW.

Experience Level of Labor Representatives:
Most labor representatives who responded to the WIB conference surveys said they had served on their boards since their boards were created, and many served in the same position on their respective Private Industry Councils before WIA was enacted.

Motivation of Labor Representatives:
When asked why they were interested in serving on their boards, labor representatives offered a range of responses.

Other responses included:

• Concern for welfare and child care issues
• Providing a voice for all workers in statewide policy
• To help guarantee quality job placement
• To improve the quality of life in my community
• To show that organized labor in the workplace builds strong communities
• To involve the WIB in labor-oriented economic development
• Improving access to adult education for incumbent and dislocated workers

WHAT WIB LABOR REPRESENTATIVES OBSERVE ABOUT THE WIA-MANDATED SYSTEM:

Board Meeting Schedules
Responses from the labor representatives indicated that the majority of their boards hold quarterly meetings, and most of their boards hold those meetings in the morning.

Note: Depending on the activeness of WIB subcommittees and the activeness of representatives on those subcommittees, quarterly meetings could leave present labor board members with too little information and too little time to effectively fulfill their duties. For those union representatives who are not full-time union officers, they may have difficulty getting reimbursement or release time to participate on their WIB.

Labor Representation on Committees
Labor representatives were asked about their roles on both executive and youth committees. In both instances, the absence of reported labor representation was noteworthy.

The significance of the lack of worker voice on these committees becomes even more apparent in the labor representatives’ response to the following question: “[Do] all decisions come to the full board for approval?” The affirmative response rate was 70%. This seems to indicate that 30% may be making binding decisions at the executive committee level without the input of the legislated representatives of workers. The Workforce Investment Act mandated multi-stakeholder boards, led by business, to shape a workforce development agenda for their communities and states. While executive committees are often necessary for the successful functioning of a WIB, there is no indication in WIA that it is appropriate or even allowable for them to circumvent the full, multi-stakeholder body of the board by usurping executive decision-making authority. Similarly, the creation of an executive committee that does not reflect the same stakeholder composition found in the full body—labor, community, etc.—effectively skirts the mandated composition of the boards.

Perceptions of Board Leadership
The survey asked WIB labor representatives whom they believed held “the most power over workforce development decisions in your community?” While we recognize that there may be different definitions of “agency staff,” it appears that respondents believe that board staff—as opposed to the appointed board members—may be driving the workforce agenda in their communities.

Employer Representation
Labor representatives were asked whether unionized employers in their areas held seats on their boards.

Note: Because many of the public agencies that are represented on the boards have unionized workforces, we believe that some labor representatives included these agencies when making their response, resulting in the reporting of a higher number of unionized employers than we believe is actually the case. Future surveys will differentiate between private and public employers. This information will be quite useful in understanding the role that private unionized employers—who are often key employers in their communities—are and could play on their WIBs. Need for this information is made more important given the perception among WIB labor representatives that the significant industries in an area are not represented on their WIB (see question b. in chart below).

Board Assessment
The survey asked labor representatives to share their views about some general characteristics of their boards. Respondents were given a series of statements—such as: “My Board views workers as our primary customer”—and were asked to state their agreement with the statement on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree).

Note: Respondents showed particularly strong agreement with two statements, statements d and e. Statement d reiterates the preceding finding that the role of agency staff in the process is too strong. The other, statement e, notes that labor representatives more strongly agree with the statement that employers seem to be the primary customers of their Boards. This is in contrast to statement f, the statement with the strongest incidence of disagreement, “My Board views workers as our primary customers.” While business leads these boards, and the system clearly outlines a dual customer system—serving both workers and employers—an emphasis on employers over workers and job seekers would be inappropriate and of concern.

Board Activities
The survey asked WIB labor representatives about the type of work in which their boards have been engaged. Respondents noted that their boards spread their time across a wide range of activities.

Other responses included:

• Committee Reports
• Youth Programs
• Economic Development

Note: While all of the activities on the list are legitimate areas of concern for workforce boards, almost no boards are spending a majority of their time on “strategic discussions.” This may be a demonstration that the boards have not yet met the vision within WIA that boards shift their concentration solely from one of compliance to operating more as a strategic “Board of Directors” for a labor market area.

Self-Sufficiency Standards
Labor representatives were asked to comment on their boards’ work around self-sufficiency standards. Labor representatives were asked if their WIBs had a self-sufficiency standard in place. Since all WIBs, by default, have a self-sufficiency standard in place, the question is misleading and so were the results. More than half, 56%, responded that their boards did have a self-sufficiency standard in place. Besides being technically incorrect, this question fails to capture the number of boards that have adopted additional self-sufficiency standards beyond the Lower Living Standard Income Level, the minimum standard of self-sufficiency in WIA as specified by DOLETA. Future survey work by the Institute will focus on how and if locally realistic self-sufficiency standards are both set and used at the local board level.

Community Audits
Respondents were also surveyed about whether their boards had conducted community audits or similar assessments. Similar to the self-sufficiency information collected, the information about comprehensive community audits was inconclusive.

Respondents were asked if their Boards had conducted a broad, comprehensive assessment of workforce needs in their areas. They responded:

To further understand the scope of their WIBs’ workforce assessments, the Institute asked those labor representatives who responded “yes” to further explain the components of their WIBs’ assessments. Based on the subsequent responses of these labor representatives, it appears that the assessments conducted by their WIBs seem far from comprehensive. More often than not, the research focused either on an employer survey or analysis of existing labor market information and excluded critical components, such as a sectoral focus or focus groups, to gather important information about both the demand (employer) and supply side (worker) of the labor market.

Note: The results of the questions on Self-Sufficiency and Community Audits offered some insight into the system, but raised more questions than answers. As a result, the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute will conduct further research in these areas both by administering an additional survey and through a survey of workforce boards in the largest metropolitan areas to be conducted under a private research grant.

What WIB Labor Representatives Need to Do a Better Job:
In 2000, the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) conducted an initial survey of state and local Workforce Investment Boards, surveying 128 of 592 local and 14 of 54 state boards. Building on that initial effort, NAWB in 2001 worked with the University of Connecticut Center for Survey Research Analysis to conduct telephone surveys of all state and local boards. Survey respondents were WIB Executive Directors and the (employer)Board Chairs. In order to understand how labor representatives see things differently than WIB staff and the business leadership, the Working for America Institute began developing this survey of WIB Labor Representatives in 2001. The survey evolved to cover a related, but differing range of questions. As a result, a direct comparison of the two surveys would not be appropriate. There is, however, one contrasting result worth note—board development.
Labor representatives showed a strong level of engagement in the system by clearly articulating what additional training they would need to help them serve more effectively as board members and better represent the needs of workers and their families. In the second survey, NAWB asked their respondents an open-ended question: “What content areas and training topics do you feel are critical for the success of your WIB.” Response rates were extremely low for all topics, with none gathering more than 6% of responses.

The WAI survey asked labor representatives to choose, from a list, those areas of additional training they would need to serve effectively on their boards. In contrast to the NAWB respondents—who showed little interest in additional training in any particular area—the WIB labor representatives expressed an extremely strong interest in training across a wide range of topics. In contrast to the 6% high from the NAWB survey, the lowest area of interest among labor representatives in any particular area was 25% and the highest was 64%. Clearly, there is an interest in additional training and support for WIB labor representatives to become more effective members of their Boards. The fact that appointed members of these boards—those who are trying to serve their communities effectively in a complicated setting—have expressed a clear interest in additional training does not reflect any shortcomings in their preparation. Labor representatives often bring to their boards a stronger understanding of both the public workforce system and their communities’ key industries than most other representatives. However, they recognize that in order to apply their knowledge effectively within the structures of the Workforce Investment Act, they may need additional training in the details of the policy and best practices from the field.

Note: One can only imagine the need for training among less experienced Workforce Investment Board members. If the national perception, which is echoed in this report, of agency staff driving state and local workforce agendas, the need for additional training is clear. If board members, who are volunteering their time, do not better understand WIA, then they will have no choice but to rely on staff for interpretation of their roles and responsibilities and policy options thus largely obviating the merits of having customer directors. . Boards were intended neither to be advisory panels to the public agencies nor rubber stamps of agency staff. They were established to set important economic and workforce development policy and practice. Labor representatives think that they need more support to perform that statutory role.

The areas of particular interest for additional education tended to be less general and more in depth. More than half the respondents requested more training in building high-road sectoral partnerships, more information on best practices from other areas, more training on how to be an effective board member, more information on approaches for serving incumbent workers, training on promoting the use of self-sufficiency standards, and more training on how to use labor market information.

Note: The results of this survey question were consistent with the feedback from participants in the Institute’s WIB labor representative regional training conferences. While there is continuing interest in understanding the basic aspects of the law, WIB labor representatives show strong interest in delving into more substantive policy issues that are relevant to their communities. During the conferences, representatives showed particular interest in three policy areas that have become a focus for the Institute’s current work. Those areas are comprehensive community audits, self-sufficiency standards and public subsidy accountability. We see those issues reflected in the types of information and training they would like to have:

Community Audits

• Understanding and using labor market information (52%)
• Building high-road business-labor partnerships around industry sectors (64%)

Self-Sufficiency Standards

• Promoting use of self-sufficiency standards (52%)
• Approaches for serving incumbent (employed) workers (52%)

Public Subsidy Accountability

• Understanding the potential for economic development linkages (47%)

In addition to these three areas, the Working for America Institute’s upcoming National WIB Labor Representative Training Conference will also emphasize many of the other training areas identified in the survey, such as learning “how to be a more effective board member” (56%) and sharing “best practices from other areas” (56%).