Overview
Title
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to define employer-directed skills development, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2690 is a plan to change the rules about helping people learn new job skills. Now, if a boss says a worker needs training, the worker can skip the usual tests and start learning right away. Also, bosses can make special deals to teach workers the skills they need for their jobs.
Summary AI
H.R. 2690 seeks to modify the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to further define "employer-directed skills development." This bill allows employers to refer individuals for job training and eliminates the need for interviews or assessments if the employer confirms the employee needs training. Additionally, it enables employers to contract with local boards to provide tailored skills development programs, setting terms such as program length, skills or credentials gained, costs, and a commitment to employ participants who successfully complete the program. The bill also changes the term "customized training" in the Act to "employer-directed skills development."
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The "Improve Employer-Directed Skills Act," introduced in the United States House of Representatives, proposes to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The bill primarily focuses on defining and facilitating employer-directed skills development. It allows employers to refer individuals for on-the-job training without an interview, provided the individual is certified by the employer as needing training and having the necessary skills. Additionally, it enables employers to receive contracts from local boards to offer skills development programs, under certain conditions.
Significant Issues
1. Potential for Misuse of Training Referrals:
One of the bill's provisions allows employers to refer individuals to training programs without requiring an interview or assessment. This could potentially lead to misuse, as employers might refer individuals who are not genuinely in need of training. This scenario raises concerns about fairness and the efficient allocation of resources.
2. Lack of a Competitive Process for Contracts:
The bill permits employers to receive contracts to offer skills development but does not specify a competitive process for awarding these contracts. Without clear criteria or a formal selection process, there is a risk of favoritism or unequal opportunities for businesses to participate, which could lead to an imbalanced playing field.
3. Ambiguity in Financial Requirements:
The requirement for employers to pay "not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C) of section 3(19)" is unclear in the absence of a specific amount or percentage. This lack of clarity could create confusion among employers and lead to inconsistent application of the bill's provisions.
4. Broad Implications of Terminology Changes:
The bill proposes to replace the term "customized training" with "employer-directed skills development" throughout the WIOA. This change could have broader implications that are not fully explored in the bill, such as affecting related policies or the interpretation and implementation of training initiatives.
5. Broad Interpretation Risks:
Terms such as "recognized postsecondary credentials" and "estimated earnings" in the employer-directed skills development agreements could be open to broad interpretation. This could result in inconsistent enforcement and application of the bill's provisions, potentially impacting the effectiveness of training programs.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broad Public Impact:
If implemented effectively, this bill could enhance the workforce by aligning training programs more closely with the needs of employers, potentially leading to increased employment opportunities and better-prepared job seekers. However, the potential for misuse and the lack of detailed guidelines could undermine these benefits, leading to inefficiencies and inequities in workforce development.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders:
- Employers:
Employers could benefit from increased control over training content and the opportunity to ensure that trainees acquire skills directly applicable to specific job roles. However, the ambiguity in financial obligations might deter participation unless clarified.
- Job Seekers and Workers:
For job seekers, the bill could present enhanced training opportunities directly tied to employment prospects. However, the absence of a mandatory interview process might overlook candidates genuinely in need of development. Inconsistent application of the bill’s provisions could also lead to unequal access to training opportunities.
- Local Workforce Boards:
These boards might face challenges due to the lack of criteria for selecting which employers receive contracts. The burden falls on them to interpret the bill's provisions and ensure fair and equitable access to training programs, potentially straining resources and oversight capabilities.
In summary, while the "Improve Employer-Directed Skills Act" aims to align skills development closely with employer needs, the absence of clear guidelines and a competitive contract process poses challenges that could hinder its intended benefits. Addressing these issues could lead to more effective workforce development and improved alignment between job seekers’ skills and employer demands.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2(a) allowing employers to refer individuals for training without an interview or assessment could lead to misuse, as it may enable employers to refer individuals who are not in genuine need of training, raising concerns about fairness and effective use of resources.
The language in Section 2(b) permitting employers to receive a contract for employer-directed skills development lacks a competitive process or criteria for selection, which could result in favoritism or inequality in contract distribution.
The requirement in Section 2(b)(vi) for employers to pay 'not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C) of section 3(19)' is unclear due to the absence of a specific figure or percentage, which could create confusion and inconsistent application.
The global amendment in Section 2(c) replacing 'customized training' with 'employer-directed skills development' may have broader implications for related policies and interpretations that are not fully addressed in the bill.
The language used in the terms for employer-directed skills development agreements, such as 'recognized postsecondary credentials' and 'estimated earnings', as outlined in Section 2(b), could be subject to broad interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement and application.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be referred to as the “Improve Employer-Directed Skills Act.”
2. Employer-directed skills development Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to allow employers to refer individuals for on-the-job training without requiring an interview, provided the employer certifies the individual's need for training and readiness. It also permits employers to receive contracts to offer skills development programs if they meet certain conditions, including costs, program details, and a commitment to hire participants after successful completion.