• Show me the money:

When unions and employers start talking about embarking on a new joint training initiative, it doesn’t take long to get to the question of “who’s going to pay for it?”  The Institute has determined that the most successful programs – the ones that have the greatest ability to meet the ever-changing needs of both the employer and the workforce – are those able to rely on a steady stream of funds that are set aside by the employer for this purpose.  There are many ways in which unions and employers have agreed to do this.  The most common is the negotiated “cents or dollars per hour” joint training fund, usually set aside in a Taft-Hartley Fund that is, by law, jointly administered by management and union trustees and staff responsible to the partnership.  (A number of the case studies in this Tool Kit involve partnerships where these training trusts exist, such as IAM/Boeing Quality Through Training Program, UAW-GM Center for Human Resources, and the UAW Labor Employment and Training Corporation.)

The next most common form of funding is the set-aside of dollars (the amount is variously determined) as part of the employer’s budget.  The expenditure of those funds is monitored and governed by a joint committee.  (The Fairfield/ICD and Visteon/IUE-CWA partnerships are examples of this kind of arrangement).
           
It is also reasonably common for firms to use a combination of tuition reimbursement funds for training individuals at outside educational institutions, and company and public funding for on-site training delivered to larger numbers of employees.

In other cases, the employer and the union(s) agree to contribute resources to a workforce project, and they agree to raise funds together from other sources to pay the remaining costs of the project.  Examples of this approach include the multi-employer St. Louis Automotive Industry Partnership, the Supplier Excellence Alliance, and the individual employer efforts featured in the WRTP case (although the partnerships themselves may exist for other purposes).  While this approach has been very successful in meeting a particular set of needs, obtaining the resources to sustain the effort over time is a continuing challenge.

In the Institute’s experience, it is the combination of both of these models (funding set-aside combined with raising outside resources) that provides the ideal combination.  Together, these models encourage continuing core (union and employer) stakeholder interest and accountability, as well as flexibility and the integration of other stakeholder and community needs.

Worker-Centered Learning

Regardless of the type of program, its funding base or the mission of the overall initiative, the Institute’s experience has shown that “worker-centered learning” is the best approach to a successful training and education program.  The attributes of “worker-centered learning” have been defined by a number of successful programs.  Typically, they contain a mix of the following elements that seek to improve the technical skills of the workers, while developing knowledge and skills to enhance their personal goals.  Successful programs also make learning safe, convenient and rewarding.  This approach:

• Builds on what workers already know
• Addresses the needs of the whole person
• Involves both workers and their unions in developing education and training plans
• Engages unions and workers in participatory decision making
• Gives workers equal access to programs
• Uses curriculum that reflects diverse learning styles
• Involves workers in selecting assessment tools
• Keeps classroom records confidential
• Integrates education and training programs into a larger strategy for workforce change
• Leads to portable credentials, whenever possible, through course credits or certifications
• Makes education and training programs safe, comfortable and accessible to workers.

1. Mission considerations should be addressed by Union(s) and Employer(s) together.

• Is training seen as common ground?
• How would the proposed training and education programs relate to the business needs of the employer?
• How would they relate to the personal and career goals of the worker?
• What changes in technology, production process or work organization are factors that build the case for an education and training initiative?

2. The Union should take the lead in engaging workers.

• The union should assist in identifying the issues and reasons for initiating a workplace education and training program. 
  
  This can be accomplished by analyzing the current education and training opportunities at the worksite and conducting an informal survey of worker education and training needs and desires.
• The union should communicate the need for education and training programs to the membership
  
  It is important that communications on the joint strategy clearly identify the benefits for workers, the union, and the employer’s competitiveness that will result from the approach.

3. Partners should assess options for the structure and funding of the partnership.

• Although the highest appropriate level of union and management leadership must agree on the mission, purpose and resource allocations for the initiative, it is also beneficial to form a joint labor-management education committee, or re-activate a structure that may have existed in the past.  This committee would make the recommendations or decisions on any training initiatives at the company (see section 4 below).

* Note: These partnerships frequently address issues other than training, including safety, marketing, the introduction of new technology, etc.

• Some of the most effective labor-management partnerships are outlined in collective bargaining language, either at the outset of the program or upon the formalization of an initiative that has already been tested and tried.  Contract language can provide for a “training trust,” where a specific hourly contribution is dedicated to the education and training of members.  This process allows for the maximum degree of sustainability in the training program.  Contract language can also mandate a set-aside of funds to be jointly monitored and regulated for specific education and training purposes.
• While some resources may be available to the employer from the workforce investment system, other public system support and foundation monies, such as grants, may be limited to nonprofit organizations.  For this reason, some of the promising practices in the case studies included here feature partnerships that have formed “501 (c) 3” organizations to govern their training programs.

• Orient and train joint committee members so that they understand the “ground rules” of the partnership.

Members should understand some of the common characteristics of joint training programs.  A joint partnership:

• Jointly develops goals and objectives.
• Jointly selects consultants, trainers, assessment tools.
• Jointly develops or selects training and education curriculum and teaching methods.
• Jointly decides issues of staffing, schedules, sites and other logistical issues.
• Jointly provides program oversight.
• Jointly evaluates effectiveness of the program.
• Hold a strategic planning session.
  
  
  • Develop a mission statement.
  • Identify resources and obstacles.
  • Set short and long-term goals.
  • Develop an Action Plan.

• Services and funding may be determined by the target population to be served:
  
  
  • Incumbent workers
  • Specialty skills or general production workers
  • New Hires
  • Retraining for Dislocated Workers.
• Services and funding may also be determined by the categories of education and training that the partnership wants to offer:
  
  
  • Career Development
  • Basic Skills or Vocational English (for speakers of other languages)
  • Technical Skill Training or Upgrading
  • Addressing new testing or certification requirements
  • Education/Tuition Assistance
  • Training for new work systems, teamwork.

• Evaluation should measure:
  
  
  • How many employees participated?
  • What were the demographics of participants compared to those eligible?
  • What did they learn as a result of participating?
  • What was the impact of the training and education on their work?
  • Was there an attitudinal change toward education and learning?
  • Were program goals achieved?
  • What were the successes and failures of the program?
• Use the information to make adjustments to the program and continue implementation.

Threshold Questions about Pursuing a New Project

A mini-checklist of considerations