Citation
A model of vocational, technical and apprenticeship craft training required to meet the needs of the construction in industry in Florida

Material Information

Title:
A model of vocational, technical and apprenticeship craft training required to meet the needs of the construction in industry in Florida
Creator:
George, Thomas H
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 142 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Apprenticeships ( jstor )
Construction industries ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Industrial training ( jstor )
Job training ( jstor )
Labor ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
On the job training ( jstor )
Simulation training ( jstor )
Vocational education ( jstor )
Apprentices ( fast )
Building Construction thesis Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- Building Construction -- UF
Occupational training ( fast )
Vocational education ( fast )
Florida ( fast )
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1994.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 136-140).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas H. George.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
030580477 ( ALEPH )
31913493 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











A MODEL OF VOCATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND APPRENTICESHIP
CRAFT TRAINING REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA











By

THOMAS H. GEORGE













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1994





























Copyright 1994 by


Thomas H. George














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The research contained in this dissertation would not have been possible without the valuable assistance of Talmadge Rushing and James Rich, Florida Department of Education; Joseph Stephens, Jr., Florida Department of Labor; and Ambrose Bittner and Bernard Downey, United States Department of Labor. These individuals, along with the assistance of Florida's construction craft training providers, helped strengthen the quality, and ultimate value, of the final document.

The support and guidance of the doctoral committee--Dr. Paul Oppenheim, Dr. James Hensel, Dr. Robert Stroh, Dr. Leon Wetherington and Dr. Robert Zieger--also contributed to the final product. Each member provided both instruction and challenge that were essential to the completion of this study.

Finally, the author needs to acknowledge Catherine, Mary and the memory of John, without whom this achievement would not have been possible.

















111















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ ix

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ...................................... x

A B STRA CT ................................................. xi

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1


Statement of the Problem ................................... 2
Objectives of the Study ..................................... 3
Central Hypothesis ........................................ 4


II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................. 6


Construction Craft Training Overview .......................... 7
The Mission of Construction Craft Training Programs .............. 7
Labor Relations in the Building Trades ................... ... 8
Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training .................... 14
Current Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training Practices ....... 18 Construction Craft Related Vocational and Technical Education ...... 21
Sources of Construction Craft Labor Market Information in Florida ...... 25
Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security,
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training .................... 25
Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security,
Bureau of Labor Market Information ...................... 26
Florida Department of Education,
Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education ........ 27

iv









System Dynamics Modeling and Simulation ...................... 28


III METHODOLOGY ........................................ 30


Sample Selection ......................................... 31
Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship Data ....................... 31
Florida Department of Education Data ................. .... 32
Projected Construction Labor Demand .......................... 33
Primary Survey Instrument Design ............................ 33
Primary Survey Instrument Testing .............................. 34
Training Provider Contact .................................. 35
Craft Training Model Simulation Development .................... 35
Cost Analyses ......................................... 38
Follow-up Survey Instrument Design ........................... 39


IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................... 40


Analysis of Initial Survey Instrument Results and Program Completion Rate 42 Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs ..................... 45
Estimates of Unregistered Apprenticeship Training Programs ......... 49 Vocational and Technical Education Job Preparation Programs ......... 50 Construction Craft Training Model Simulation Results ............... 54
Construction Craft Training Cost Analyses .................. ... 63
Analysis of Follow-up Survey Instrument ........................ 74


V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 78


Sum m ary ............................................. 78
Conclusions ............................................ 81
Training Provider Recommendations .................. ....... 83
Secondary Education System ............................. 83
Postsecondary Education System ........................... 84
Apprenticeship Training System ........................... 84
Construction Craft Training Instructors ....................... 85
State of Florida ...................................... 85
Recommendations for Further Research ......................... 87
Craft Training Providers ................................. 87

v









Training Provider Funding Methods ......................... 87
Concluding Remarks ...................................... 88


APPENDICES


A CONSTRUCTION CRAFT TRAINING PROVIDER SURVEY ........ 89 B CRAFT TRAINING MODEL SIMULATION RESULTS ............ 118


REFERENCES CITED ......................................... 136


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................... 141






































vi














LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4-1 Administration of the craft training program ................. 42

4-2 Training provider's opinion that a one-year preapprenticeship
program would help reduce the dropout rate ................. 45

4-3 Current student enrollment in apprenticeship craft
training programs ................... ................ 46

4-4 Registered apprenticeship completions and projected annual craft
labor dem and ...................................... 47

4-5 Current student enrollment in vo-tech job prep training programs 51

4-6 Vo-tech job preparation graduates and projected annual craft
labor demand ...................................... 52

4-7 "Skilled" craft worker training route ....................... 58

4-8 Adequacy of existing classroom facilities ................... 64

4-9 Adequacy of existing shop facilities ...................... 65

4-10 Adequacy of existing administrative facilities ................ 65

4-11 Adequacy of training facility location ..................... 66

4-12 Introduction of career awareness programs in Florida's middle
schools ........................................... 74

4-13 Introduction of school-to-work transition and/or youth apprenticeship
programs in Florida's high schools ....................... 75

4-14 Development of stronger contractor ties with postsecondary
construction craft training providers ...................... 75

4-15 Apprenticeship training providers contracting with postsecondary
institutions to provide the academic-related instruction .......... 75

vii








4-16 Requiring standard skill certification of all apprenticeship
graduates ................................... .. .... 75

4-17 Requiring standard skill certification of all vo-tech job prep
graduates ......................................... 76

4-18 Requiring all construction craft instructors to complete six
construction- and/or craft-related continuing education units
every two years ................................... 76

4-19 State of Florida providing tax incentives to contractors who establish
and maintain registered apprenticeship training programs ........ 76

4-20 Increasing the annual number of apprenticeship graduates from 879
per year to 2,700 per year within 5 years (a 200% increase) ...... 76

4-21 Increasing the Department of Education funding to expand the
number of apprenticeship graduates ....................... 77

C-1 Graphic representation of the helper, vo-tech, nonjoint, and joint
rate equation calculations from 1990 to 2005 ............... 120

C-2 Graphic representation of the vo-tech graduation and apprenticeship
completion rate equations from 1990 to 2005 ............... 121

C-3 Graphic representation of the skilled labor requirement rate equations
from 1990 to 2005 .................................. 122

C-4 Graphic representation of the projected labor demand rate equations
from 1990 to 2005 ................................. 123

C-5 Graphic representation of the projected construction project labor
rate equations from 1990 to 2005 ....................... 124

C-6 Graphic representation of the projected construction industry labor
departure rate equations from 1990 to 2005 ................ 125

C-7 Calculated equation values for the Florida construction craft labor
model simulation from 1990 to 2005 ..................... 126









vlll














LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3-1 Construction industry craft training model .................. 37

4-1 Construction industry craft training model .................. 55

4-2 Source of craft training for workers filling the demand for
journeymen- and foremen-level craft workers ................ 60

4-3 Projected skilled labor growth and the supply of formally trained
craft w orkers ...................................... 61

4-4 Projected skilled labor departures and the supply of formally
trained craft workers ................................. 62

B-i Construction industry craft training model ................. 119

























ix














KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS



AF of L American Federation of Labor AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations BCIAC Florida Department of Education, Building Construction Industry
Advisory Committee

BCTD Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO BLMI Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of
Labor Market Information

CPLR Construction Project Labor Requirement F-BAT Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of
Apprenticeship and Training

F-DOE Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult, and
Community Education

FEFP Florida Education Finance Program FTE Full-time equivalent students RFP Request for proposal SAC State Apprenticeship Council/Agency US-BAT United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and
Training

US-DOL United States Department of Labor






x














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A MODEL OF VOCATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND APPRENTICESHIP CRAFT
TRAINING REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA

By

Thomas H. George

April 1994


Chairperson: Paul Oppenheim
Major Department: M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction



Construction industry observers have suggested contractors are currently training approximately two-thirds of the industry's annual need for skilled craft workers. The purpose of this study was to test this premise by using Florida as a paradigm, quantifying the actual number of individuals in formal construction craft training programs, and developing a simulation procedure that accurately delineates Florida's annual need for skilled construction craft workers.

The research stratagem at the Florida Departments of Labor and Education identified every registered craft training provider in Florida along with the current enrollment in each program. These craft training providers were subdivided into three groupings: joint apprenticeship programs, nonjoint apprenticeship programs, and vocational and technical education job preparation programs. The entire population of xi








formal construction craft training providers was surveyed with a 38% overall response rate. The statistical analyses, which use a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance technique, were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers.

A systems dynamics model of the construction craft training process was developed that utilized information derived from the construction craft training provider survey and the Florida Department of Labor's annual industry and occupational employment projections. The model simulation verified that only 16% of the industry's projected annual demand for journeyman-level craft workers (5,750 individuals) was being filled by apprenticeship program completers and 19% of the yearly demand was being filled by semi-skilled vocational and technical education job preparation program graduates. The results of the model simulation verified that the annual number of apprenticeship completers was scarcely sufficient to fill either the number of departures or the expected growth of the foreman-level craft worker labor pool and that the annual number of semi-skilled job preparation graduates was explicitly incapable of filling either the projected number of departures or the expected growth of the journeyman-level craft worker labor pool. This investigation confirmed that Florida's construction industry is providing the craft work force with insufficient formal training opportunities.

Additional analyses of the research data resulted in conclusions and

recommendations that will help the construction industry improve the craft training process.




xii














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Construction craft training has been a contentious issue between contractors and the craft work force for more than a century. In 1888, the National Association of Builders advocated replacing formal apprenticeship training programs with schoolbased vocational training since, the association believed, apprenticeship training was not able to meet the "modern conditions" the industry was facing at the time (Haber, 1930). Even though contractor organizations were successful in establishing schoolbased vocational craft training programs, individual contractors showed little interest and were either unwilling or unable to train new workers (Haber, 1930).

The study of construction craft training indicates that, historically, contractors who provide training have been interested only in providing minimum levels of training, while craft trade organizations have fought for broad-based craft training. Due primarily to the cyclical nature of the industry, broad-based training has been advocated as a means to provide multiple employment opportunities for the craft worker. The goal of craft training, according to the trade organizations, is not to provide the craft worker with such narrowly defined skills that he/she is unable to find local employment once a project has been completed, but to provide continued industry employment opportunities.




1








All the blame for providing inadequate levels of construction craft training cannot be shouldered solely by the contractors. It is difficult to convince a newly hired employee to spend 6 to 10 hours per week in school, typically during evening hours, while also completing a 40-hour work week. World Bank estimates indicate that individuals who have completed formal vocational and apprenticeship training programs earn approximately 50% more over their lifetimes than individuals who have not completed a formal training program (Metcalf, 1985). This suggests there is a positive association between formal construction industry training and craft worker lifetime earnings. Contractors are, however, in the preeminent position to provide both the incentive and the motivation for craft work force participation in training programs by promulgating the benefits of formal craft training.


Statement of the Problem


The construction industry currently faces a shortage of skilled craft workers. This scarcity of skilled workers is projected to increase through the end of the 20" century and continue into the 21St century. A potential solution to this problem is for the construction industry to expand the craft training opportunities available to the work force while increasing retention efforts targeted at journeyman-level workers.

The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (US-BAT), under the guidelines set forth in the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Programs (29 CFR 29), provides apprenticeship standards for 35 occupational titles in the 20 different trade classifications within the industry (Bureau of Apprenticeship and






3

Training, 1991). The US-BAT apprenticeship standards for each of the various construction trades address a distinct level of intellectual understanding and manipulative skill ability. The US-BAT has translated these requirements into a different mix of school-based and job-site training for each occupational title. The primary problem, therefore, is not the structure of the training program but the quantity of training currently provided. The fundamental question the construction industry must answer is how many craft workers the industry must train to meet its future labor requirements.


Objectives of the Study


Currently no objective method exists to determine the appropriate levels of construction craft training. Construction craft unions base the annual number of individuals admitted into apprenticeship training programs on member unemployment levels, while contractors base training decisions on perceived costs; neither method addresses the labor needs of the industry. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to use Florida as the paradigm to

1. Document the current level of construction craft training in registered

apprenticeship programs;

2. Determine the current level of construction craft training in postsecondary

vocational and technical education job preparation programs (vo-tech job

prep);

3. Determine the current statewide construction craft employment projections,

both expected separations and projected growth;






4

4. Develop a construction labor operations research simulation model utilizing

projected construction industry labor requirements and current craft training

levels;

5. Develop cost analyses of the construction industry training process; and 6. Make recommendations to improve Florida's construction craft training

process.

The purpose of this study was not to make comparisons about quality variations between the joint (union) and nonjoint (nonunion) apprenticeship programs, but rather to quantify the current levels of both apprenticeship and job prep training currently being carried out by the industry. The main objective of this study was to determine current levels of construction craft training and utilize the operations research model and its computer simulation to estimate the number of craft workers supplying the demand for skilled (journeyman- and foreman-level) craft workers who receive no formal craft training.


Central Hypothesis


The premise of this study was that the construction industry is not providing enough craft training to meet the industry's demand for skilled craft workers. If this insignificant level of craft training continues, the industry will undergo a significant craft worker skill loss over the next decade. If the current level of formal craft training and its associated costs are determined and analyzed, cost projections can be developed. A central component of this thesis was to approximate the funding commitment required from the construction industry to provide a training level that






5

meets 80% of the construction industry's projected labor demand for skilled craft workers.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


There is a growing belief in the industry that the quantity of construction craft training does not meet the needs of the industry (Fox, 1988; Gasperow, 1990). Industry observers have long realized that craft training is vitally important to the construction industry since training levels directly influence cost, productivity, quality and safety (Weinberg, 1969; Liska, 1994). Three basic methods of providing construction industry training: (1) formal and informal on-the-job training; (2) training off the job in schools and/or training centers; and (3) formal apprenticeship with academic vocational instruction and structured, supervised, on-the-job training. An investigation into current nationwide levels of construction craft training suggests that approximately 19% of craft workers report receiving formal company training, 38% report receiving informal on-the-job training (of these individuals, approximately 10% also report receiving postsecondary, school-based training), 4% report receiving "other" training and 39% report receiving no craft training at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992).

Contractors in the industry increasingly recognize that technological change demands continuing education and training for journeyman-level craft workers; however, only 25% of all craft workers report receiving skill improvement training (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992). Improving access to, and availability of, craft training is vital in the effort to provide the construction industry with a craft work

6






7

force that has a wide range of job skills and is able to adapt to the constantly changing conditions encountered on a construction job site.


Construction Craft Training Overview


The Mission of Construction Craft Training Programs

Formal craft training, specifically formal craft apprenticeship and to a lesser

degree vocational and technical education job preparation programs, in the construction industry is designed to produce a skilled, journeyman-level craft worker who can perform a broad range of tasks, including the fundamentals of the craft and all specialized tasks, largely without direct supervision (Mills, 1972). An examination of the relative merits of academic vocational training coupled with a structured on-the-job training program versus a strictly academic vocational training program indicates that a mixture of on-the-job training and academic classroom training is the most effective method of training semiskilled and skilled craft workers (Franklin, 1973). Experience on previous construction sites combined with task evaluation and layout skills are essential for qualified, journeyman-level craft workers (Mills, 1972). Every viable construction industry craft training program must include a combination of formal, structured, on-the-job training coupled with appropriate vocational schooling (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980).

Perhaps the primary function of legitimate vocational, technical and

apprenticeship training programs is to develop the craft work force for the construction industry (Foster, 1973). These formal training programs are expected to expose the apprentice to a variety of work and training, both on the job and in the classroom. In






8

the ideal setting, on-the-job training refers to a systematic process that includes incremental exposure to the diverse elements of the trade; repeated performance of tasks under the direction of a qualified, journeyman-level craft worker; and periodic appraisal of skill development (Franklin, 1973). The training functions of formal programs are not designed to produce semiskilled laborers, but rather a core of broadly skilled craft workers whose skill mastery gives them the distinguished "journeymanlevel craft worker" status (Mills, 1972).

Formal training is offered to few young persons entering the construction industry due to the inadequacy of training mechanisms. Many "journeyman-level" craft workers in the construction industry become so without ever obtaining formal instruction. The failure of formal training programs to produce the appropriate number of craft workers can be attributed to a failure of both the planning process and to political opposition from trade unions (Mills, 1972). The problems with formal vocational, technical and apprenticeship programs, along with the solutions, lie within the construction industry itself.



Labor Relations in the Building Trades

The American Federation of Labor (AF of L) issued the formal charter of the Building and Construction Trades Department on March 20, 1908, to the seven founding member unions: Carpenters, Iron Workers, Lathers, Painters, Plumbers, Steam Engineers and Tile Layers (AFL-CIO, 1983). By 1917, membership in construction trades unions constituted more than one-fifth of the entire membership of the AF of L (AFL-CIO, 1983). These early years were marked with interunion






9

jurisdictional disputes in the unions' struggle for control of the work. During the early 1920s, approximately 95% of all strikes were disputes among trade unions protecting their "trade jurisdiction" from infringement by other unions rather than protecting working conditions and standards from attack by employers (Haber, 1930). Employers often attempted to substitute workers of a lower wage union for workers of a higher wage union, which exacerbated this problem (Haber, 1930).

As these early trade unions became more powerful, they began to introduce work rules and establish restrictions on output. These work rules were created either by the unions or the employers, or arrived at jointly, depending upon the nature of the activity controlled by the work rules and the relative bargaining strength of the parties (Haber, 1930). Employers tended to view many of the restrictive union regulations as faulty economic policy; however, the regulations were appropriate policy from the point of view of perpetuating the union and protecting the living standards of the membership (Haber, 1930). Many construction employers were less opposed to recognizing collective bargaining agreements than they were to acquiescing to the regulations the unions enacted in their efforts to protect wages, hours and working conditions (Haber, 1930).

The employer-employee relationship in the construction industry began to change during World War II. The war effort created an urgent need for rapidly designed and built defense projects. Many of these large projects were constructed by nationally oriented design-build contractors who had large in-house engineering staffs (Edmister, 1991). When these large, typically unionized contractors entered a local labor market, local union leaders tended to keep a close watch on work assignments






10

and job conditions and, at times, took positions on jurisdictional issues that most

observers regarded as extreme or unwise (Mills, 1972). At times of full employment

and favorable market conditions, the unions tended to steadfastly enforce work rules,

especially on large construction projects (Haber, 1930).

After World War II, many business leaders thought the trade unions were

becoming too powerful (Edmister, 1991). Congress passed the Labor Management

Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), partially in response to these perceptions

(Zieger, 1986). Although President Harry Truman initially vetoed the Taft-Hartley

Act, Congress overrode the veto in 1947 (AFL-CIO, 1983).

The Taft-Hartley Act outlined union unfair labor practices and also permitted

the states to outlaw the closed-union-shop. The following 21 states currently have

"right-to-work" laws that legislatively prohibit the closed-union shop (Gall, 1988):

State Year Legislation Passed

Alabama 1953 Arizona 1947 Arkansas 1947 Florida 1943 Georgia 1947 Iowa 1947 Kansas 1957 Louisiana 1954 & 1976 Mississippi 1954 Nebraska 1947 Nevada 1951 New Mexico 1947 North Carolina 1947 North Dakota 1947 South Carolina 1954 South Dakota 1947 Tennessee 1947 Texas 1947 Utah 1955








State Year Legislation Passed

Virginia 1947 Wyoming 1963


The right-to-work laws in these states encouraged the growth of nonunion

construction firms within the state borders. With very few exceptions, these nonunion contractors were initially small firms, competing in local construction markets, with each firm having less than $1 million in annual billings (AFL-CIO, 1983).

Congress passed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Landrum-Griffin Act), which allowed union hiring halls to refer members based on seniority, residence, and experience--an exclusive referral system (Perloff, 1981). The Landrum-Griffin Act also authorized collection of training funds and joint administration of union-management training programs (Mills, 1972). This last provision became the cornerstone of the union apprenticeship training programs by providing the mechanism to collect apprenticeship training funds, treated as trust funds, from unionized employers. Training funds, which are primarily collected through a levy attached to the journeyman wage rate, are jointly administered by the apprenticeship training committee (Mills, 1972).

Between 1957 and 1962, unemployment in the unionized construction industry was never less than 12% (Perloff, 1981). By 1965, however, union construction unemployment fell to approximately 4% (Perloff, 1981). This low unemployment level was partially responsible for dynamic changes in the construction industry. In certain geographical areas, without fear of outside competition from nonunion firms, construction labor unions were able to gain control over the labor supply and introduce






12

inflexible and restrictive work practices, demand and receive higher wages, and enact greater restraints on contractor management (Haber, 1930; Edmister, 1991). Many union business agents began to advocate unreasonable positions on local labor issues while threatening to withhold the services of the union craft worker--a powerful weapon (Borcherding, 1976; Edmister, 1991). Fragmented contractor management associations, which collectively bargained with the trade unions, agreed to union demands rather than face disruptive strikes (Haber, 1930; Edmister, 1991). The driving force behind the escalating wage increases can be attributed to the contour wage theory that postulates local unions were engaged in wage rate leapfrogging during this period (Schulenburger, 1978). In heavily organized areas of the country, local unionized contractors had no incentive to contest unions' demands for higher wages (Maloney, 1978; Edmister, 1991). Each contractor would have the same base labor cost, effectively taking labor out of market competition, and these increased labor costs would be passed on to the owner.

Between 1967 and 1974 the construction unions were able to collectively

bargain for an average 64.2% wage increase (Perloff, 1981). As construction labor costs began to adversely affect the cost of new facilities, the users of construction services began to organize. The Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable was founded in 1969 and later renamed and combined with other alliances in 1972 to form the Business Roundtable (1983). This organization of chief executives of the nation's largest industrial corporations began to focus on labor costs as a method to reduce construction costs of new facilities. As these owners became aware of the actual costs of restrictive union labor practices and craft jurisdictional disputes, the owners,






13

particularly in the South, began to experiment with nonunion construction companies during the early 1970s (Allen, 1988). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Business Roundtable's Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project produced 23 individual reports on specific construction industry problem areas (Business Roundtable, 1983). The summary report identified 57 inefficient work restrictions not required by collective bargaining agreements that inflated union labor costs by an estimated 15% (Business Roundtable, 1983).

The construction industry historically has been one of the largest industries in the United States, contributing anywhere from 4% to 5% of the nation's Gross National Product for any given year (United States Bureau of the Census, 1993). Construction industry spending increased from $91.3 billion in 1970 to approximately $400 billion by 1987 (United States Bureau of the Census, 1993). By the late 1970s the average nonunion general contractor, paying two-thirds the union wage rate for labor, had a 6%-7% cost advantage over the unionized general contractor (Diekmann and Peppler, 1984). By 1984, nonunion contractors accounted for more than 70% of the construction dollar volume (Northrup, 1985). The nonunion share of the construction industry market has continued to increase slowly and was approximately 80% of the labor pool by 1993 (Tomsho, 1993). The decline in unionized construction is further evidenced by employment information compiled by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1973, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the American Federation of LaborCongress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) represented 40% (1,722,000) of the






14

4.3 million construction workers; by 1987, the BCTD represented only 22% (1,123,000) of the more than 5 million construction workers.



Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training

The origins of construction industry craft training in the United States date to the British system of trade union structure with its tradition of private sponsorship and funding (Motley, 1907). Throughout the 19th century and continuing until World War I, the construction industry relied on European immigrants for skilled craft labor. In 1888, the National Association of Builders advocated replacing formal apprenticeship training programs with school-based vocational training since, the association believed, apprenticeship training did not meet the "modern conditions" the industry was facing at the time (Haber, 1930). Although contractor organizations at the time were successful in establishing school-based vocational craft training programs, individual contractors showed little interest and were unwilling and/or unable to train new workers (Haber, 1930).

By 1928, construction craft apprenticeship training efforts were still haphazard, employer-sponsored, on-the-job training programs without uniform national standards (Haber and Levinson, 1956). These 1920s-era apprenticeship programs were used by both employers and early labor unions as one, and perhaps the primary, method of regulating the number of new workers entering the industry (Franklin, 1973). During the 1930s, when thousands of skilled craft workers were unemployed, union resistance to apprenticeship training programs was intense, and employers were unwilling to assume the costs and obligations of craft training at a time when skilled workers were






15

readily available (Haber and Levinson, 1956). For these reasons, construction craft training became and has continued to be a contentious issue between employers and the construction craft work force.

The only apprenticeship legislation that has been promulgated at the federal

level was the passage of the National Apprenticeship Act (Fitzgerald Act) in 1937. In 1911, Wisconsin became the first state to adopt an apprenticeship statute (Glover, 1986). The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which established the legislative origins of vocational education in the United States, was initially intended as a replacement for formal craft apprenticeship (Haber, 1930; Hamilton, 1990). The Fitzgerald Act, which established a uniform federal apprenticeship policy for the United States (29 U.S.C. 50 1), required the Secretary of Labor to establish standards for apprenticeship training and provided neither encouragement nor incentive for states to get involved in apprenticeship training (Haber and Levinson, 1956).

Pursuant to the Fitzgerald Act, the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) established guidelines for apprenticeship training that forced the formalization of training policies in each of the construction crafts. The original national apprenticeship standards were established by national joint apprenticeship committees for each of the building trades, with each committee composed of an equal number of members from the individual BCTD unions and respective national employer associations (United States Department of Labor, 1938). Consequently, the BCTD was the first construction organization to establish formalized apprenticeship training programs for the building trades that followed the US-DOL guidelines (Levitt, 1979).






16

The requirements were promulgated by the US-DOL, but administration and control of the programs were kept at the local level (Haber and Levinson, 1956).

"Labor Standards for the Regulation of Apprenticeship Programs," published in the Code of Federal Regulations, established the minimum standards for sponsors of apprenticeship programs (29, CFR 29.5). Following is a summary of the minimum apprenticeship standards:

1. Initiation of a written apprenticeship agreement
2. Minimum starting age of 16 years
3. Written schedule of work processes the apprentice will learn on
the job
4. Minimum of 144 hours per year of organized technical
instruction
5. Progressively increasing wage schedule
6. Supervision of on-the-job training and adequate training facilities 7. Periodic review and evaluation of the apprentice's progress, both
on the job and in the classroom
8. Cooperation by both employers and employee organizations 9. Recognition of successful completion of the apprenticeship
program
10. Training without regard to race, creed or national origin


In the United States high school graduates historically have displayed little interest in apprenticeship or skilled blue-collar jobs (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). The educational system and faulty school-to-work transition programs play an important role in this negative attitude (Hamilton, 1990). The United States and Canada are the only two industrialized nations in the world where apprenticeship is not a teenage youth training program (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). In most countries (Germany, Great Britain, Australia and Japan, for example) apprenticeship is a teenage youth employment program. This is not true in the United States, where the construction trades apprentice is older, has more years of general education, is enrolled






17

for a longer apprenticeship training period, receives less on-the-job supervision, has fewer hours of off-the-job training and has a higher dropout rate (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980; Glover, 1986).

The United States is the only country investigated that has not established

training councils or industry training boards for apprenticeship training. Thirty-two states do not a have State Apprenticeship Council (SAC), thus making the United States the only industrialized country that relies on an incomplete federal-state system of apprenticeship administration (Glover, 1986). The 28 states and 3 territories that do have an SAC are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Guam, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin (Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, 1991). Many of these states, facing budgetary shortfalls, are reducing or eliminating SAC funding levels. The Florida legislature has ever eliminated funding for the Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training.

There also is a serious problem associated with the secondary educational

system that until recently has been focused entirely on presenting college preparation course work at the expense of those students who do not attend college. Middle schools and high schools have actively moved away from "industrial arts" class offerings, and career counselors have not effectively promoted the construction industry to students who are not college bound (Federle, Rowings, and DeVany, 1993). The construction industry's characteristic of undertraining the work force devalues the






18

work done by all workers, especially the most highly skilled craft workers, and leaves most of the work force with few options for upward social mobility, which also prejudices high school career counselors (Hamilton, 1990).



Current Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training Practices

Vocational, technical and apprenticeship training and continuing education programs are expensive to establish and administer (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Many employers perceive these training programs as costly propositions that do not pay off, especially when workers are likely to go to work for competitors before employers' training costs can be recovered (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Nontraining employers view the employees and/or other employers as ultimately receiving the training benefits (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980).

A conflict of interest exists between the construction employers and the work force regarding scope of training. Because building trades craft training is universal in nature, and not firm specific, it is generally cheaper for a contractor to hire craft workers trained by other firms than it is to actually train craft workers (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). The BCTD unions have tried to keep apprenticeship training as extensive as possible to ensure job mobility since extent of training and competence of skilled craft workers are strongly related to craftsmen's ability to secure work (Mills, 1972; Franklin, 1973).

The nonunion sector of the construction industry has tried but has not had complete success in enhancing the skills of nonunion construction helpers or "apprentices" (Levitt, 1979). US-BAT has approved national standards for nonunion






19

apprenticeship training programs; however, nonunion construction firms generally have not been effective in establishing a wide range of vocational and apprenticeship programs (Foster, 1973; United States Department of Labor, 1975). Most nonunion training programs tend to include extensive informal on-the-job training, which typically translates to random observation of others' work (Foster, 1973). At most smaller contractors, the apprentice's time is devoted largely to production work; any training that occurs is largely a by-product (Mills, 1972; Foster, 1973). Essentially, most contractors, both union and nonunion, are not individually equipped to support broad, systematic craft instruction to the untrained or marginally trained work force (Foster, 1973).

The largest nonunion firms have established task or modular training programs to train unskilled workers within very narrow task structures (Northrup, 1985). Upon completing a specific task training module, the worker typically receives a certificate of completion (Northrup, 1985). These modular training programs tend to be job specific so the employer can recoup training costs as soon as possible (Business Roundtable, September, 1982; Northrup, 1985). It is unclear whether these narrowly defined training programs provide employees any advantage in securing future employment.

There is also a movement within the nonunion sector of the construction

industry to promote "competency-based" training for the construction crafts (Northrup, 1992). Competency-based apprenticeship training, as proposed for the construction trades, refers to the practical and theoretical instruction integrated into individual learning packages that enables apprentices to proceed at their own pace (Northrup,






20

1992). Competency-based training programs are required to meet US-DOL standards, under the guidelines set forth in the 1937 Fitzgerald Act, if the program is to be registered with US-BAT. The length of apprenticeships, as established by US-BAT, tends to reflect differences among the various construction trades. These differences require adjustments in the number of hours required for training in each of the various building crafts. It is difficult to reduce the time element of vocational and apprenticeship training without impairing training content (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Competency-based apprenticeship and vocational training must not be misused or diminish scope of training.

Since the United States tends to train inadequate numbers of construction industry apprentices, journeymen who have graduated from formal apprenticeship programs work more hours annually than do workers who have not completed a formal apprenticeship program (Franklin, 1973; Glover, 1986). Those individuals who complete apprenticeship training are more likely to maintain employment related to their training and usually suffer fewer and briefer periods of unemployment than narrowly skilled craft workers (Franklin, 1973).

Graduates of formal apprenticeship programs are broadly trained, adaptable to change, likely to undertake continuing education and more likely to stay with the trade (Franklin, 1973). Apprenticeship training program graduates also are more likely to become craft supervisors (Franklin, 1973). In one study, 39% of construction supervisors had completed a formal apprenticeship training program, whereas only 33% of all journeyman-level craft workers had completed a formal training program, indicating that more craft supervisors tended to be apprenticeship graduates (Franklin,






21

1973). Studies also have shown that workers with formal apprenticeship instruction are more productive than workers with other types of training (Glover, 1986).

Supporters of apprenticeship training claim that underutilization of

apprenticeship results in shortages of skilled journeymen that ultimately diminish the quality of the constructed product (Franklin, 1973). Others argue that the primary purpose of formal apprenticeship in the construction industry is to produce a pool of supervisors and key skilled craft workers for any given trade (Northrup, 1985).



Construction Craft Related Vocational and Technical Education

In the United States, apprenticeship is only one way to acquire construction skills. The primary methods of skill acquisition in the construction industry, both formal and informal, are within the construction industry (Foster, 1970). Nonapprenticeship sources of skill acquisition in the construction industry include training in other industries, vocational and technical schools, military training and informal instruction by friends and relatives (Foster, 1970). Informal training in the construction industry also is gained through unstructured skill acquisition such as observation of others' workmanship.

The national shift away from unionized construction and toward nonunion

construction has contributed to a restructuring of construction craft training processes. This restructuring has sharply limited traditional apprenticeship and favored vocational education mixed with practical experience (Engineering News-Record, 1992). Assorted local nonunion contractor organizations have developed training programs in the various trades and attempted to implement these programs in local vocational






22

schools. The community and technical college system has provided facilities and teachers for related instruction for many of these programs.

The public role in construction vocational and apprenticeship training is to provide related instruction in the local public school system (Mills, 1972). The problems with nonunion vocational and apprenticeship programs sponsored in community colleges frequently stem from the schools' inability to conduct courses that suit the precise needs and schedules of apprentices, who come from many firms and multiple trades (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Uneconomical small classes and individualized instruction typically are required. These problems have limited the success of the vocational and technical education training process in meeting the needs of the construction industry.

An appraisal of the various trades in the construction industry suggests that

crafts requiring fundamental intellectual ability (electrical, mechanical and sheet metal trades) rely on a more comprehensive school-based training program than the manipulative skilled trades (bricklayer, cement mason and equipment operator), where training is more logically provided on the job site. The differing skill level requirements in each of the various crafts in the building trades suggest there are internal cost efficiencies related to types of course offerings and duration of training programs (Metcalf, 1985).

The quality of vocational education and training is highly variable in the

building trades and depends on sponsoring organization, location, program orientation and instructor competence (Metcalf, 1985). The highly competitive nature of the construction industry (there are approximately 12,450 active, licensed general






23

contractors in Florida), where contracts are awarded based on lowest estimated cost, also precludes inclusion of training costs in contractors' bids (Coble, 1992). Inconsistent quality of these craft training programs can be directly tied to inadequate funding and may stem from employer perceptions about the cost effectiveness of vocational and apprenticeship training (Glover, 1986). Therefore, the case can be developed and presented that supports expansion of either the entire or selected parts of the vocational education and training system.

Apprenticeable trades in the construction industry cannot normally be learned exclusively in vocational schools. Vocational and technical education is only the first step in skill development for a journeyman-level craft worker. On-the-job experience is deemed the most important part of the apprenticeship training process (Foster, 1970; Franklin, 1973). Improved vocational schooling, prior to apprenticeship, is viewed as a supplement to the apprenticeship process (Kenny, 1988). There is little likelihood that vocational education, without structured on-the-job training, is capable of producing a fully trained journeyman. The appropriate vocational education roles in apprenticeships are to provide a source of well-prepared applicants for apprenticeship and serve as a resource in providing the related instruction portion of apprenticeship (Kenny, 1988). The role of vocational education is not to be a substitute for apprenticeship (Kenny, 1988).

Extensive use of a narrowly skilled or semiskilled work force requires division of work assignments into simple and repetitive tasks commensurate with the employees' skill levels (Northrup, 1985). These substitute craft workers require close and careful supervision by highly skilled journeymen (Levitt, 1979). The role of the






24

supervisor becomes critical to the overall progress and quality of the construction project (Diekmann and Peppler, 1984). The supervisor must assume complete control of both planning and sequencing the job and also must handle all tasks outside the normal routine (Levitt, 1979). Technological change and increased mechanization are likely to allow substitution of materials, equipment and semiskilled labor for journeyman skills in the basic trades; however, changing technology demands higher craft worker skill levels in the mechanical and electrical trades. The industry-wide move away from analog control systems to digital instrumentation systems in industrial construction is an example of technological change requiring a more highly skilled craft worker than in the past.

These training issues are not new problems to the construction industry. Prior to World War I, the construction industry depended heavily on overseas immigration as the source of skilled labor (Haber, 1930). The restrictions imposed on immigration after World War I eliminated this source of skilled labor. Since the early 1920s contractors have been responsible for providing training for the craft work force (Haber and Levinson, 1956). The industry increasingly recognizes that strengthening contractor commitment to formalized vocational, technical and apprenticeship training programs and expanding contractor cooperation, especially in the nonunion sector of the industry, is necessary if the construction industry is to provide the training necessary to meet the needs of both contractors and employees (Rosenbaum, 1991; Associated General Contractors, 1991; Liska, 1994).






25

Sources of Construction Craft Labor Market Information in Florida


In 1943, Florida was the first state in the United States to pass a right-to-work law (Gall, 1988). Its tradition of nonunion construction has led to a wide variety of vocational and apprenticeship training programs. Formal apprenticeship programs are sponsored by individual construction firms, associations of nonunion employers and associations of union employers. Vocational and technical education programs, taught at both secondary and postsecondary institutions, also are available for some crafts.



Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training

The Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (F-BAT), compiles the apprenticeship records of registered apprenticeship programs in Florida. These records are kept in hard-copy form in Tallahassee. Each registered apprenticeship program is required to establish an apprenticeship committee whose duties must include the following (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1990):

1) Screen and select applicants for apprenticeship
2) Maintain all records for at least 5 years
3) Determine credit to be granted (if any) to applicants for previous
experience or education, according to policy
4) Enter into apprenticeship agreements between the apprentice and
the committee as program sponsor and submit these agreements
to the Registration Agency [F-BAT] for registration
5) Maintain a record of each apprentice's training progress on the
job and in related classroom instruction
6) Review regular progress reports for apprentices and recommend
actions as appropriate
7) Arrange tests for determining the apprentice's progress in
manipulative skills and technical knowledge






26

8) Notify the Registration Agency [F-BAT] of all other apprentice
actions including registrations, reinstatements, cancellations and
repeat periods
9) Notify the Registration Agency [F-BAT] when apprentices have
satisfactorily completed their apprenticeship and request issuance
of a Certificate of Completion to such apprentices
10) Provide for continuous employment of apprentices insofar as
possible
11) Secure, if possible, Participating Employer agreements for
designated employers and notify the Registration Agency
[F-BAT] by copy
12) Hear and adjust complaints of violations and make rulings as
deemed necessary
13) Recommend such changes in the program as deemed necessary
to improve effectiveness and efficiency
14) Notify the Registration Agency's [F-BAT] representative of all
apprenticeship committee meetings and make available, upon
request, official meeting minutes
15) Provide apprenticeship records for review, upon official request
of the Bureau's servicing representative
16) In general, be responsible for the successful operation of the
program and the welfare of the apprentices by performing the
duties listed herein


These apprenticeship committee regulations were promulgated under the guidelines

established by US-BAT (Florida Statutes, Chapter 38c-16 1-10).



Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information

The Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor,

Employment and Training, Bureau of Labor Market Information (BLMI), annually

compiles and forecasts industry and occupational employment projections. The BLMI

uses 14 different statistical analysis techniques, 7 shift and share models and 7

regression models to simulate individual occupational projections, with each model

using both historical and current employer-provided data. The statistical model with






27

the best fitting R2, Durbin-Watson statistic, or t-statistic for each of the individual employment codes is chosen for inclusion in the general employment model.

The BLMI projects construction industry employment rising from 323,278

workers in 1990 to 390,154 workers by the year 2005 (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1992)--an increase in employment of 66,876 workers or 20.69%. These employment figures are broken down into "General Building Contractors," "General Contractors except Building" and "Special Trade Contractors" as well as by craft. The BLMI also predicts the number of yearly openings for each craft. If each of Florida's registered apprenticeship programs and vocational education programs were to train for all the projected openings (growth plus separations)-approximately 11,934 individuals per year--vocational and apprenticeship training for the building trades in Florida would be a significant undertaking.



Florida Department of Education,
Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education

The Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education (F-DOE), compiles the number of students enrolled in vocational and technical education job preparation training programs (vo-tech job prep). The Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, provides funding to local school districts based upon the 1973 Florida Education Finance Program law. Funding calculation is based on number of full-time equivalent students (FTE) (Florida Department of Education, 1993).






28

System Dynamics Modeling and Simulation


The system dynamics (sometimes referred to as industrial dynamics) approach to model building is a method of interpreting a simplified representation of interacting components that work together for some purpose (Richardson and Pugh, 1981). For construction craft training, these elements would include joint apprenticeship training programs, nonjoint apprenticeship training programs, vo-tech job prep programs and informal on-the-job training combined with job-site requirements for construction craft labor and expected craft labor market activity.

The following seven basic components must be addressed when using a system dynamics strategy for problem solving (Richardson and Pugh, 1981; Roberts, 1983):

1) Problem identification and definition
2) System conceptualization
3) Model formulation
4) Analysis of model behavior
5) Model evaluation
6) Policy analysis
7) Model use or implementation

These components form the foundation for developing a fundamental understanding of any complex process--in this case, the construction craft training procedure.

The system dynamics theory was originally developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Industrial Management (now the Alfred P. Sloan School of Management), as a methodology for designing and/or reorganizing corporate organizational policy (Roberts, 1978). This approach ties the segmented functional features of formal organizations into an integrated model of varying rates of flow and responsively changing levels of accumulation. In the model development process, decisions are viewed as controllers and represented as control valves (Richardson and






29

Pugh, 1981). These decisions are represented by mathematical equations, based in part on information about the initial contents of the source level, and control the rate of flow to the destination level (Roberts, 1983). The equations, mathematical descriptions of the operations of the system being simulated, represent either implicit or explicit procedures developed for the system operations (Roberts, 1978). By quantifying the current behavior of the construction craft training process, projections of the consequences of continuing the current magnitude of craft training can be constructed.

If the system dynamics modeling technique were to be used on the construction craft training process, a conceptual, prototype paradigm that delineated current construction industry processes of craft skill development could be produced. This computer simulation of the model would be designed as a flexible tool to quantify the craft training process and eliminate informal subjective preconceptions about craft training. The final operating model could be used by policy makers to supplement construction craft training decisions and to determine consequences of maintaining current construction craft training policies.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY



The fundamental purpose of this research was to develop an operations research simulation model of the construction industry's craft labor training process. Complementing the contractor's training decision with an objective procedure, one that takes the subjective bias out of the training decision, could increase the construction industry's commitment to craft training.

Of primary importance to this model development was information quantifying current enrollment levels in both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship training programs and in the publicly funded vo-tech job prep programs. This information was collected by the Florida Departments of Labor and Education and provided to the researcher.

Also of crucial influence on the model was the projected dropout rate

associated with each of the three training programs. This information was discovered through a survey instrument distributed to training providers throughout Florida.

Identifying projected demand for construction craft labor was also a critical portion of the craft training model simulation development process. The BLMI performs regression analyses on historical and current employment databases to project future labor requirements for the state.






30






31

Once the data were collected and compiled, the simulation model was constructed and tested. Results of model simulation were used to support recommendations and defend conclusions.

Cost analyses were developed using data provided by F-DOE. These cost analyses were used to identify the magnitude of funding provided to support construction craft training.

Finally, a follow-up questionnaire was developed and sent to respondents of the primary survey instrument. This questionnaire was created to test respondents' reactions to proposed recommendations.


Sample Selection


Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship Data

Florida is one of 31 states or territories that have a State Apprenticeship

Council/Agency (SAC). Apprenticeship records for the state are kept at the F-BAT office in Tallahassee; however, copies also are kept in the US-BAT state office, also located in Tallahassee. Florida operates under a Sunshine in Government Law that opens most state agency records to the public for review. To gain access to the USBAT records, the researcher would have to sue under the Freedom of Information Act, a convoluted and lengthy process. Upon a request from the researcher, F-BAT supplied a dated list of all registered apprenticeship training providers in Florida. FBAT does not, however, summarize apprenticeship records or keep running totals of the number of apprentices enrolled in each of the registered training programs. Apprenticeship records are kept in hard-copy form at the F-BAT office and are not






32

computerized. Therefore, the researcher made a formal, written request access to the F-BAT paper records. Formal approval for access to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Bureau of Job Training, apprenticeship records was granted in June 1993. The researcher manually searched the paper records to determine

1. The number of registered apprentices in each program,
2. The number of registered programs currently inactive and
3. Any programs that were not identified in the original listing.

As of December 1992, there were 58 joint apprenticeship training providers offering 83 craft training programs with an enrollment of 1,795 apprentices, and 39 nonjoint apprenticeship training providers offering 92 craft training programs with an enrollment of 1,671 apprentices. The updated list of training providers was used as part of the database for the survey instrument; the number of joint and nonjoint registered apprentices was used in the simulation model.



Florida Department of Education Data

The F-DOE provided, upon request, a listing of all construction-related course work taught in publicly funded secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. The F-DOE data identified 64 postsecondary vo-tech job prep training providers offering 185 construction-related programs with 5,095 enrolled students. Identification of the postsecondary vo-tech job prep training providers completed the final portion of the database for the survey instrument, and enrollment data were used in the simulation model. The F-DOE data also identified 81 apprenticeship training programs with 3,179 enrolled students, and 114 supplemental (typically continuing






33

education) training programs with 4,526 enrolled students, who were taught and funded through vo-tech programs. This information was used in the cost analyses.


Projected Construction Labor Demand


The BLMI employment calculation methodology, which is performed under annual grants from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, is uniform throughout the United States. The Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections 1990-2005 handbook identifies 40 individual constructioncraft-related occupations. The handbook summarizes construction employment by Occupation Code and Industry Code. The researcher used the BLMI summary Occupation Code 87000000, "Construction Trades & Extractive Occupations," number rather than the employment calculations for each of the individual craft occupations or the Industry Code figures, although either of these methods would have been acceptable.


Primary Survey Instrument Design


In January 1993, the researcher was awarded a research contract from the

Florida Department of Education, Building Construction Industry Advisory Committee (BCIAC), under the title "Recommended Changes to the Existing Vocational/Continuing Education Programs for the Building Trades." The request for proposal (RFP) was specific and enumerated 31 research questions to be answered, 20 of which were applicable to construction industry training providers (joint and nonjoint apprenticeship programs and vo-tech job prep programs). Additional questions that






34

facilitated and supported the operations research model for this treatise were developed and included.

The survey instrument (see Appendix A) was developed utilizing "The Total Design Method" (Dillman, 1978). Open-ended questions were developed to allow respondents to describe their biggest problems and suggest improvements for the training process. Closed-ended questions with ordered choices were developed to distinguish opinion differences among the three groups of training providers. Partially closed-ended questions were developed to identify numerical cost and enrollment differences among the three groups of training providers.


Primary Survey Instrument Testing


The preliminary survey instrument was developed and reviewed by the BCIAC project coordinator. Once changes were made to the survey instrument, a list of candidates was developed who would test the preliminary survey instrument. The draft survey instrument was tested on a non-union contractor in South Florida, a union contractor in Southern California, a United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry local union in a Middle Atlantic state and a vo-tech training provider in north-central Florida. Extensive review of the survey instrument also was conducted with F-DOE and F-BAT representatives. Final review of the survey instrument and printing was completed in May 1993, with initial distribution on June 1, 1993.






35

Training Provider Contact


The researcher attempted to contact each of the identified training providers by telephone five calendar days prior to the June 1, 1993 initial survey instrument distribution. Ten calendar days after the initial mailing the researcher again attempted to contact telephonically each of the identified training providers who had not already responded. Twenty-eight days after the initial mailing, the researcher mailed an additional complete survey instrument to each of the 131 nonrespondents. The survey cutoff date was August 10, 1993, ten weeks after the initial mailing.


Craft Training Model Simulation Development


The system dynamics approach to understanding the construction craft training process began with an effort to understand the system of constraints that has created and sustained the craft training problems. Relevant data for understanding the problem were gathered from a variety of sources including a review of the relevant literature, interviews with informed persons at both the United States and Florida Departments of Education and Labor and specific quantitative investigations.

Initial craft training model development began with a set of logical diagrams showing the cause-and-effect correlation of the construction labor training process. The preliminary craft training model was simulated using one specific craft (electricians) to debug the mathematical equations. The model was then run with the entire set of construction industry craft training data. The output data from the model were then evaluated and compared with the BLMI employment projections. Probable






36

consequences of continuing current levels of construction craft training were then scrutinized.

Of primary interest during the development of the craft training simulation

model was to have the model specifically identify the number of individuals who fill the labor demand for skilled craft workers and receive no initial, formal craft training. The model was constructed so that the only way to receive the skilled craft worker status of journeyman or foreman level was to enter the construction industry through a registered apprenticeship program with structured on-the-job training, through a votech job prep program coupled with informal on-the-job training upon graduation, or though the helper route without any formal training and only informal on-the-job training. The last path is the area of major concern.

A simplified version of the craft training model is presented in Figure 3-1. A complete version of the model is presented in the next section.

The computer software utilized for this project was Professional DYNAMO Plus, published by Pugh-Roberts Associates, 1986. This software was created to simplify the development and simulation of multiple variable models and/or processes. The programming language allows the researcher to concentrate on the correlations within the model instead of struggling with complex software programming problems. This software permitted the researcher to model the construction craft training process and among other things, calculate the number of individuals who fill the annual demand for skilled construction craft labor and receive no formal craft training.








37










r0



I II






I


01








a 1
08E 0 ( IZa. E


























I oI I
1










Li00 0 0. -1~


























'0 M C. c :
ca 0(7






38

The model also was developed so that the researcher would be able to compare simulation results to the BLMI craft labor projections. A calculation variable was included in the model to track the total number of craft workers required (variable CPLR). This variable allowed the researcher to verify the model was running correctly and that the model's projected employment calculations closely matched the BLMI labor projections.


Cost Analyses


During the research process, it was discovered that apprenticeship training providers had the ability to contract with publicly funded educational institutions to furnish the academic portion of the training. In return, these educational institutions were able to claim FTE funding from F-DOE for each student. Information was requested from F-DOE to allow the researcher to calculate approximate FTE funding levels. Funding levels were calculated for both apprenticeship craft training and for construction-related vo-tech job prep training.

A series of questions was included in the primary survey instrument to help provide an accurate estimate of the training providers' variable cost of providing construction craft training. These questions also focused on the fees charged by the training provider to the student, contractor and public education finance committee. The question concerning cost to the public education finance committee was used to determine the accuracy of the responses to the cost questions.






39

Follow-up Survey Instrument Design


Each of the respondents to the primary survey instrument was given the

opportunity to request a copy of the survey summary results. The researcher included a short follow-up questionnaire that tested the respondent's reaction to the proposed recommendations for improving construction craft training in Florida.

This entire research methodology was designed to describe the craft training

process currently being conducted in Florida. The literature review indicated that there was no objective method to determine the appropriate amount of craft training which the construction industry should be conducting. This research was designed to be a first step in providing objective measures to determine suitable craft training levels.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION



The results of this research project and the discussion of the findings are broken into the following segments:

1. Analysis of the initial survey instrument results and program completion
rate
2. Registered apprenticeship training programs
3. Estimates of unregistered apprenticeship training programs
4. Vocational and technical education job preparation programs
5. Model simulation results
6. Training cost analyses
7. Analysis of the follow-up survey instrument results

The survey instrument that was distributed to verifiable construction craft

training providers covered topics not included in this dissertation. Therefore, only the relevant portions of the survey instrument are included in this section. A complete copy of the initial survey instrument and the follow-up survey instrument, including tabulation and interpretation of each of the responses, is included in Appendix A.

The statistical analysis technique employed on the initial questionnaire

responses was a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance, in this case the Wilcoxon test. The nonparametric one-way analysis of variance method was chosen because the research questions were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers--joint, nonjoint and vo-tech programs. The Wilcoxon technique 40






41

assigns a rank to each response, then computes a X2 value that is designed to detect differences among the three groups of training providers while eliminating the influence of outliers on the computed X2 value. The a = 0.05 decision criterion tests the null hypothesis that the population mean response ranks are not significantly different. For values of Pr {x2} < 0.05, there is a significant difference among the sample mean ranks; for values of Pr{x2} > 0.05, there is no significant difference among the sample mean ranks. The symbol pt indicates mean response value.

Where appropriate, the symbol # was used to indicate the number of responses received from the training provider group--either joint apprenticeship program, nonjoint apprenticeship program, vo-tech job prep program or the total number of responses to the specific question. The symbol % was used to indicate the percentage of responses received from the training provider group. In some instances, the % column totals may add to greater than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category.

Each of the respondents to the initial survey instrument was given the

opportunity to request a summary copy of the survey results. Sixty of the training providers requested a summary copy of the results. The researcher included a short, follow-up survey instrument designed to test the training provider's impressions of the researcher's proposed recommendations. Statistically valid conclusions concerning the opinions of the entire training provider population cannot be drawn from the results of this follow-up survey.







42

Analysis of Initial Survey Instrument Results and Program Completion Rate


The overall response rate of training providers to the initial survey instrument was 38%. Responses were received from a representative cross section of each of the sample population subsets. Since the entire verifiable population of formal construction craft training providers was identified and sampled, statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data derived from the primary survey instrument. Table 4-1 is the analysis of the survey instrument response rate. Table 4-1 Administration of the craft training program
(see question #1 in Appendix A)
Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job State-Wide Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total

Total number of 58 100 39 100 64 100 161 100 training providers

Number of survey 19 32 24 62 18 28 61 38 respondents

Number of surveys
returned as 3 5 5 13 8 5 undeliverable

Number of
duplicate programs ~ 3 5 3 2 omitted from
sample population

Number of surveys
returned after the 2 3 2 1 cutoff date



The researcher attributes the 28% response rate from vo-tech training providers as primarily due to the survey mailing dates in June. During this time frame, publicly funded postsecondary educational institutions are on summer break. In hindsight, the






43

survey instrument response rate from these institutions probably would have been higher if distribution had taken place during the normal September-to-May school year.

One subject is central to each of the sections that follow in this chapter: How do we retain the individuals who enter these training programs but elect to discontinue their training prior to completing the program? Although this question is not the principal focus of this treatise, it does influence the recommendations made.

One particular problem that needed to be addressed was to determine the

expected apprenticeship completion rate for both the joint and nonjoint programs and the expected graduation rate for the vo-tech programs. Two questions were asked in the survey instrument that addressed these issues.

The expected completion or graduation rate (see question #14 in Appendix A) for the various programs was as follows:

Joint Apprenticeship Programs 9 = 63.9% Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs p = 51.1% Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs p = 52.9% Industry Average p = 54.4%

The statistical analysis of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the training program completion (or graduation) rates among the various programs (X2=0.2678). A statistical analysis of the completion rates, by craft, also was performed and showed no significant difference among the craft completion rates (X2=0.7020). The responses to this question indicate that approximately 4 of every 10 new apprentices drop out of the training programs before completing the training program.






44

The highest rate of student dropout (see question #15 in Appendix A) was expected to occur during the first year of training. The mean dropout rates were as follows:

Joint Apprenticeship Programs p = 7.7 months Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [p = 9.3 months Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs t = 7.3 months Industry Average p = 8.3 months

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the dropout rate among the various programs (X2=0.1385). The dropout rate within the first year of training suggests either a lack of understanding of the realities of the construction industry by individuals entering craft training programs or the imposition of an impediment that prevents continuation of the training program.

Training providers indicated a belief that some form of industry awareness program would help reduce the training program dropout rate. Table 4-2 shows the response to the introduction of a preapprenticeship program. The follow-up survey tested the attitudes toward initiating a school-to-work transition program in the secondary school system. Reducing the training program dropout rate would allow for better utilization of scarce resources.






45

Table 4-2 Training provider's opinion that a one-year preapprenticeship program
would help reduce the dropout rate (see question #16 in Appendix A) Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job Question Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total

Strongly agree 4 21 11 46 2 11 17 28 Moderately agree 8 42 9 38 10 56 27 44 Moderately 4 21 2 8 4 22 10 16 disagree
Strongly disagree 3 16 2 8 2 11 7 12


Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs


The enrollment information in Table 4-3 shows the number of apprentices

enrolled in both joint and nonjoint registered apprenticeship programs as of December 1992. This information was developed through research performed at the Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship in Tallahassee.

The information in Table 4-4 indicates the average annual level of apprentice completions for each of the identified crafts, the projected annual number of craft openings and the percentage of craft openings currently being filled by apprenticeship completers. The information describing projected number of craft openings was developed from the BLMI data published in the Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections 1990 2005 (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1992).







46

Table 4-3 Current student enrollment in apprenticeship craft training programs Craft Number of Number of Total Apprentices in Joint Apprentices in
Programs Nonjoint Programs

Boilermaker 0 0 0 Brick Mason & Stone 38 5 43 Mason

Carpenter 259 31 290 Cement & Terrazzo 0 0 0 Finisher

Electrician 474 933 1,407 Elevator Constructor 0 8 0 Equipment Operator 17 0 17 Insulator 67 0 67 Ironworker 140 0 140 Millwright 33 0 33 Painter 60 6 66 Plasterer, Lather & 7 0 7 Drywall Finisher

Plumber 209 238 447 Pipe Fitter 189 2 191 Sprinkler Fitter 41 106 147 Roofer 50 0 50 Sheet Metal Worker 186 110 296 Refrigeration Mechanic 14 201 215 Tile Setter & Marble 6 29 35 Finisher

Other (Glazier) 2 2 4







47

Table 4-4 Registered apprenticeship completions and projected annual craft labor
demand

Craft Training Registered Annual Projected Percent of Sponsor Apprenticeship Average Annual Annual Craft Training Number of Number of Openings Filled Programs, Apprentice Craft by State-Wide Completions Openings Apprenticeship Total

Electrician Nonjoint 21 233 Growth 664 Joint 11 95 Depart. 648 25 Total 32 328 Total 1,312

Plumber Nonjoint 16 60 Growth 481 Joint 9 42 Depart. 478 19 Total 25 102 Total 959

Pipe Fitter Nonjoint 3 1 Joint 10 38 w /Plumber w/Plumber Total 13 39

Sprinkler Nonjoint 6 35 Fitter Joint 1 8 w/Plumber w/Plumber Total 7 43

Carpenter Nonjoint 10 8 Growth 975 Joint 6 65 Depart. 1,068 4 Total 16 73 Total 2,043

Millwright Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 22 Joint 5 8 Depart. 37 14 Total 5 8 Total 59

Flooring Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 45 Installer Joint 0 0 Depart. 43 0 Total 0 0 Total 88

Drywall Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 103 Finisher Joint 1 2 Depart. 154 1 Total 2 2 Total 257

Lather Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 8 Joint 1 0 Depart. 13 0 Total 1 0 Total 21

Plasterer Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 38 Joint 2 0 Depart. 102 o Total 3 0 Total 140

Refrigeration
Mechanic Nonjoint 11 67 Growth 371 12 &/or HVAC Joint 2 4 Depart. 236 Total 13 71 Total 607 Installer

Sheet Metal Nonjoint 11 26 Growth 41 Duct Installer Joint 4 47 Depart. 49 81 Total 15 73 Total 90

Painter Nonjoint 2 2 Growth 645 Joint 4 20 Depart. 569 2 Total 6 22 Total 1,214







48

Table 4-4--continued


Craft Training Registered Annual Projected Percent of Sponsor Apprenticeship Average Annual Annual Craft Training Number of Number of Openings Filled Programs, Apprentice Craft by State-Wide Completions Openings Apprenticeship Total

Ironworker Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 70 Joint 6 47 Depart. 105 27 Total 7 47 Total 175

Roofer Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 207 Joint 2 17 Depart. 142 5 Total 2 17 Total 349

Equipment Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 98 Operator Joint 5 6 Depart. 96 3 Total 6 6 Total 194

Tile Setter Nonjoint 1 10 Growth 29 Joint 2 2 Depart. 48 16 Total 3 12 Total 77

Glazier Nonjoint 2 1 Growth 63 Joint 2 1 Depart. 76 1 Total 4 2 Total 139

Asbestos Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 45 Worker/ Joint 3 17 Depart. 152 9 Total 4 17 Total 197
Insulator

Elevator Nonjoint 1 2 Growth 8 Constructor Joint 0 0 Depart. 13 10 Total 1 2 Total 21

Stone Mason Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 5 Joint 3 0 Depart. 9 0 Total 3 0 Total 14

Brick Mason Nonjoint 2 2 Growth 96 Joint 3 13 Depart. 147 6 Total 5 15 Total 243

Concrete & Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 126 Terrazzo Joint 1 0 Depart. 336 0 Finisher Total 2 0 Total 462

Boilermaker Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 6 Joint 0 0 Depart. 11 0 Total 0 0 Total 17

Other Trades Growth 239 Depart. 138
Total 377

Totals Nonjoint 92 447 Growth 4,385 Joint 83 432 Depart. 4,670 10 Total 175 879 Total 9,055






49

The data presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 indicate that, for virtually every craft within the industry, the current level of craft apprenticeship training in Florida is insufficient to meet the expected manpower needs of Florida's construction industry. Sheet metal duct installer is the exception due, primarily, to the low projected annual demand (90) and the high training level in the four joint programs (47 annual completions). Industry wide, the average annual level of apprenticeship completions is 879 completions per year; projected industry growth and separations average 9,055 per year. This information provides evidence that only 10% of the construction industry's annual demand for craft workers is being filled by formally trained craft workers.


Estimates of Unregistered Apprenticeship Training Programs


Estimates of the number of unregistered craft training programs were

impossible to make. There was, however, ancillary evidence that some of these unregistered programs were being taught in the postsecondary vo-tech institutions. The F-BAT records indicated an enrollment level of 3,463 individuals in registered apprenticeship programs. The F-DOE records indicated an enrollment of 3,179 individuals in vo-tech apprenticeship programs, or 92% of the F-BAT number. There also were 4,526 individuals enrolled in vo-tech construction craft related supplemental (typically continuing education) training programs. The F-DOE does not require contractor organizations to register their "apprenticeship" training programs with the F-BAT as a precursor for these organizations to contract with publicly funded vo-tech programs to provide the academic portion of the craft training process. Officials at






50

F-DOE believes there are "unregistered apprenticeship" vo-tech training programs being offered in Florida; however, research conducted for this dissertation was not designed to detect these programs.

The reasons employer associations did not make the effort to register these programs was not clear, but the supposition was that they were either unwilling or unable to meet the F-BAT stipulations (see Chapter 2). Meeting these apprenticeship training program guidelines is not a difficult process. Virtually every national construction employer association provides apprenticeship training programs that have been approved by US-BAT. These are the same programs the local employer associations adopt and modify to meet the needs of local employers. Unless the national training program is drastically modified, F-BAT approval is a predictable and customary process.


Vocational and Technical Education Job Preparation Programs


The data in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 were derived from the vo-tech job preparation enrollment information for fiscal year 1991-1992. Table 4-5 includes total enrollment figures for construction-related vo-tech job prep programs. Table 4-6 shows the average annual level of job prep graduates for each of the identified crafts, adjusted for the expected drop-out rate; projected annual number of craft openings; and percentage of craft openings currently being filled by job prep graduates. The projected number of craft openings information was developed by the BLMI data.







51

Table 4-5 Current student enrollment in vo-tech job prep training programs


Craft Number of Students in Vo-tech Job Prep Programs

Boilermaker 0 Brick Mason & Stone Mason 214 Carpenter 594 Cement & Terrazzo Finisher 0 Electrician 837 Elevator Constructor 0 Equipment Operator 0 Insulator 0 Ironworker 0 Millwright 0 Painter 0 Plasterer, Lather & Drywall Finisher 21 Plumber 311 Pipe Fitter 0 Sprinkler Fitter 7 Roofer 0 Sheet Metal Worker 13 Refrigeration Mechanic 3,059 Tile Setter & Marble Finisher 31 Other (Glazier) 1







52

Table 4-6 Vo-tech job preparation graduates and projected annual craft labor
demand
Craft Vo-tech Job Average Projected Annual Percent of Preparation Annual Number of Craft Annual Craft
Programs, Number of Openings Openings Filled
State-Wide Graduates by Job Prep
Total Graduates

Electrician Growth 664 38 222 Separations 648 Total 1,312

Plumber Growth 481 15 82 Separations 478 9 Total 959

Pipe Fitter w/Plumber w/Plumber w/Plumber w/Plumber

Sprinkler 1 2 w/Plumber w/Plumber Fitter

Carpenter Growth 975 54 157 Separations 1,068 Total 2,043

Millwright Growth 22
1 1 Separations 37 2 Total 59

Flooring Growth 45 Installer 0 0 Separations 43 0 Total 88

Drywall Growth 103 Finisher 1 6 Separations 154 2 Total 257

Lather Growth 8
0 0 Separations 13 0 Total 21

Plasterer Growth 38 0 0 Separations 102 Total 140

Refrigeration Growth 371 Mechanic 43 810 Separations 236 133 &/or HVAC Total 607 Installer

Sheet Metal 2 3 Growth 41 Duct Installer Separations 49 Total 90

Painter Growth 645 0 0 Separations 569 Total 1,214
Ironworker Growth 70 1 1 Separations 105 Total 175







53

Table 4-6--continued


Craft Vo-tech Job Average Projected Annual Percent of Preparation Annual Number of Craft Annual Craft
Programs, Number of Openings Openings Filled
State-Wide Graduates by Job Prep
Total Graduates

Roofer Growth 207
0 0 Separations 142 0 Total 349

Equipment Growth 98 Operator 0 0 Separations 96 0 Total 194

Tile Setter Growth 29 2 8 Separations 48 Total 77

Glazier Growth 63 1 0 Separations 76 Total 139

Asbestos Growth 45 Worker/ 0 0 Separations 152 6 Insulator Total 197

Elevator Growth 8 Constructor 0 0 Separations 13 0 Total 21

Stone Mason Growth 5
0 0 Separations 9 0 Total 14

Brick Mason Growth 96 27 16 Separations 147 Total 243

Concrete & Growth 126 Terrazzo 0 0 Separations 336 0 Finisher Total 462

Boilermaker Growth 6
0 0 Separations 11 0 Total 17

Other Trades Growth 239 Separations 138
Total 377

Total Growth 4,385 (adjusted for 186 1,105 Separations 4,670 12 Refrig. Mech.) Total 9,055

The total average graduation column total is adjusted to projected labor demand

for refrigeration mechanics. The projected annual number of construction craft






54

openings for refrigeration mechanics is the projected demand minus the annual number of apprenticeship graduates (607-71) or 536 annual openings. The supply of vo-tech job prep graduates is 271 individuals greater than the demand.


Construction Craft Training Model Simulation Results


The Construction Craft Training Model (Figure 4-1) shows the craft

progression from unskilled and semiskilled to the skilled craft worker status of journeyman and foreman. The only means to achieve this skilled worker status is by

(1) completing either a joint or nonjoint apprenticeship program with its structured and supervised on-the-job training component, (2) graduating from a vo-tech job prep program coupled with a period of informal on-the-job training upon graduation or by

(3) progressing through the helper route and receiving only informal on-the-job training. Since it has already been shown that registered apprenticeship programs and vo-tech job prep programs fill only a small portion of the construction industry's annual demand for labor, the question arises: How many individuals fill the annual demand for skilled construction craft labor without receiving any formal skill training?

The construction craft training model and its computer simulation were designed to calculate the number of individuals who fill the demand for skilled construction craft workers but receive no formal craft training--the helper path. Initial craft levels in each of the labor pools were determined using the formula described by Levitt (1979) in Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the US. and the current percentages of unionized construction craft workers in the United States (20%) (Tomsho, 1993). The number of individuals enrolled in each of the joint and nonjoint









55








c -0
00

a.O c 0,0
'E a
C L 2 o



"o-- I _j DI.























--.4




INI ,I
m nnl I j 0





























Er 2E
c
L C Z o
































00
>oa.
--'--" I ..... t o






d c: aa












----- n
> 0)



















....-2' P
clir




f rlf c o c o Eo o>, CL 0 CL 0B
o




co C: ; o 0 3O

CC


c 0 Et



cu rr .o ui






56

apprenticeship programs and the vo-tech job prep programs was determined using information provided by F-BAT and F-DOE. The annual level of industry separations and growth was determined from the BLMI data. All this information was used to determine the rate equations (RI through R25) in the model. The construction craft training model was simulated using Professional DYNAMO Plus software published by Pugh-Roberts Associates, 1986.

The computer simulation was first tested on the electrical construction trade. Electricians were chosen because the craft labor projections were straightforward and the craft training rates were among the highest in the industry. Once the model was tested and debugged using the electrical craft data, the model was reformulated to use craft training levels and projected labor demand data for the entire construction industry. The computer simulation results presented in this section apply to the entire construction industry. Complete simulation results for the construction industry and an explanation of each of the rate equations are included in Appendix B.

The areas of primary interest are the expected number of individuals

completing both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship programs, expected number of individuals graduating from vo-tech job prep programs and projected demand for skilled craft workers during the 15-year calculation period. The analysis of the simulation model indicates that over the period of 1990 to 2005, the construction industry replacement demand for skilled craft workers--the separation and growth calculations for journeymen and foremen (y of equations R5, R6, R7 & R8)--was calculated to be approximately 103,243 skilled craft workers. If there is no increase in






57

apprenticeship and/or job prep training, demand for skilled craft workers will be filled according to the following formulas:

The supply of craft workers graduating from vo-tech job prep programs is
expected to be

2005
R5 = 17,440 y =1990



The supply of craft workers completing nonjoint apprenticeship programs is
expected to be

2005
E R6 = 7,152 y = 1990



The supply of craft workers completing joint apprenticeship programs is
expected to be

2005
E R7 = 6,912 y=1990



The projected demand for skilled labor is expected to be

2005
E (R8 + R7 + R6) = 103,243 y=1990


The expected labor departures from the skilled labor pools (journeymen and
foremen) is also of concern:

2005
E (R25 + R26) = 39,852 + 14,907 = 54,759 y = 1990

Using these calculations, joint apprenticeship programs are expected to fill






58

6.7% of the demand for skilled workers, nonjoint apprenticeship programs are expected to fill 6.9% of the demand for skilled workers, vo-tech job prep programs are expected to fill 16.9% of the demand for skilled workers, while approximately 69.5% of the demand for skilled craft workers will be filled by individuals who have received no formal craft training (see Table 4-7). Table 4-7 "Skilled" craft worker training route Training Route Number of "Skilled" Percent of "Skilled"
Craft Workers Craft Workers

Helper with informal 71,739 69.5 on-the-job training
Vo-tech job prep with informal 17,440 16.9 on-the-job training
Nonjoint apprenticeship with 7,152 6.9 formal on-the-job training
Joint apprenticeship with 6,912 6.7 formal on-the-job training
Total 103,243 100


This model also indicates that the expected number of formal apprenticeship completions is insufficient to replace the number of supervisory craft workers (foremen) leaving the industry during this calculation period (14,907 departures vs. 14,064 completions).

The initial journeymen and foremen labor pool levels were 110,059 and 41,127 craft workers, respectively, or an estimated total of 151,186 skilled craft workers in the construction labor pool. This calculates to one skilled craft labor force turnover approximately every 22 years.

151,186 Original Sklled Craft Labor Pool Level
= 22 years
103,243 Ne wEntrantsintoSkilledLaborPool
15 Year Calculation Period






59

Therefore, by the year 2015, unless the current levels of formal construction craft training are increased significantly, approximately 70% of the "skilled" craft work force will have received the majority of their training by observing other craft workers who may or, more likely, may not know how to properly perform the work. The current levels of construction craft training will lead to a serious decline in the skill level of the construction craft work force.

Figures 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 show projected demand for skilled craft workers and sources of craft training. Figure 4-2 shows projected demand, both growth and departures, and the increasing industry reliance on informal on-the-job training as the primary skill development tool and training source for the craft work force. Figure 4-3 shows projected growth of the skilled craft work force and supply of formally trained craft workers. Figure 4-4 shows projected departures of the skilled craft work force and supply of formally trained craft workers.

Interestingly, the supply of apprenticeship-trained craft workers is

approximately equal to either the projected craft labor growth or the projected number of craft departures of foremen-level craft workers, but not both. In addition the supply of vo-tech-trained craft workers is insufficient to meet either the projected growth or the projected number of departures of journeymen-level craft workers.








60











a))
c: c -zI
-) 6. oo"
a) 0 05 > z



II
V)
N >~


0



(a

ta
im m




00





[m[m m( l m m


Cmim m m m m m m
-I) 0




CL)
c-o














U)0JO M-E]) equN ~ I*iim~~mmm mmoi- =Iv--,0
a)
LO
a io




E 0

0 0
CC)
w 0d










0)






co r- (0 t (0 N)0
sja>joAM 4ujo jo jaqwnN
_aCe








61














SLL






-o o













I
I






o
a







U> o Sc0





0








Sa o o
CO
oo c a )
-hD










0
000




sio~oM 1ejojo jqwn









62













C a)
E


LLg










ce
0
Eo

a a cc~)
0 oo



SFa




S00 0


0



0o





E 0









a) CD 0 04
E
CcL

73


















0 0 0 8 ( l VED C ao o j w







E~ O 0 C09 o ,








N N -






63

Construction Craft Training Cost Analyses


Many cost items must be considered when analyzing the expense of providing construction craft training, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Tooling & equipment costs
2. Training material costs
3. Instructor salaries
4. Instructor continuing education training
5. Facilities overhead
6. Administrative overhead

A series of questions was asked of the training providers to determine these

costs, and others, and to determine any possible revenue sources and funding amounts. Responses to these questions were met with incomplete results that will be discussed later in this section.

One of the first items that had to be considered was to determine the existing training program's maximum yearly training capacity for new students (see question #11 in Appendix A). The mean responses for the individual training programs were

Joint Apprenticeship Programs a = 25 students Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs ai = 23 students Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs p = 16 students Industry Average p = 24 students

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the maximum yearly training capacity of the various programs (X2=0.3254). The responses to this question indicate that a maximum yearly class size of 20 to 25 students would be possible for the existing training infrastructure.







64

The most costly item faced by construction craft training providers is investment in physical training facilities. Tables 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10 present the responses of the training providers as to adequacy of existing training infrastructure, classroom facilities, shop facilities and administrative facilities. Responses to these questions indicate that the current classroom, shop and administrative facilities used to provide construction craft training are considered adequate for existing training levels.




Table 4-8 Adequacy of existing classroom facilities
(see question #18 in Appendix A)
Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job Question Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total

Fully adequate 15 79 10 42 10 56 35 57 Moderately 4 21 12 50 5 28 21 34 adequate
Moderately * 1 4 3 17 4 7 inadequate

Completely * * * * inadequate







65

Table 4-9 Adequacy of existing shop facilities
(see question #19 in Appendix A)
Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job Question Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total

Fully adequate 14 74 7 29 8 44 29 48 Moderately 4 21 13 54 5 28 22 36 adequate

Moderately 1 5 3 13 5 28 9 15 inadequate

Completely * 1 4 * 1 2 inadequate



Table 4-10 Adequacy of existing administrative facilities
(see question #20 in Appendix A)
Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job Question Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total

Fully adequate 17 90 15 63 10 56 42 69 Moderately 2 11 7 29 4 22 13 21 adequate

Moderately * 1 4 2 11 3 5 inadequate

Completely 1 6 1 2 inadequate



A final question concerning training facilities asked whether the location of the training program meets the needs of the students. Responses to this question indicate the current location of the facilities were adequate to meet the needs of the students.






66

Table 4-11 Adequacy of training facility location
(see question #34 in Appendix A)
Joint Nonjoint Vo-tech Job Question Apprenticeship Apprenticeship Preparation Totals Programs Programs Programs # % # % # % Total % of # Total
Fully adequate 14 74 11 46 11 61 36 59 Moderately 4 21 13 54 7 39 24 39 adequate
Moderately *+ * * * inadequate
Completely * * # inadequate


The responses of the training providers indicate that the existing training

infrastructure is adequate to meet current enrollment needs. To determine the mean annual enrollment in existing training programs, the current average level of annual joint and nonjoint apprenticeship completions and vo-tech graduations data in Tables 4-4 and 4-6 can be compared with the verified number of training programs, also in Tables 4-4 and 4-6. The following is a comparison of the mean current annual student enrollment calculations for the various programs with the mean annual training capacity data:

Mean Mean
Enrollment Capacity
Joint Apprenticeship Programs p = 5 students p = 25 students Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs pt = 5 students g = 23 students Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs pt = 6 students p = 16 students Industry Average p = 5 students [ = 24 students

This comparison indicates a conspicuous underutilization of capacity in existing training programs, which suggests that major capital investments would not be required






67

to develop additional training facilities if there were a significant (200%) increase in construction craft apprenticeship training.

A series of questions was asked of the training providers in an attempt to determine:

1. Annual training program budget
2. Annual cost to the student
3. Annual cost per student to the contractor
4. Annual cost per student to the public education finance committee
5. Program's estimated annual expenditure per student

The response to the question concerning the annual training budget (question #28 in Appendix A) was insufficient to draw any statistically valid conclusions; however, the few complete responses that were received suggested a yearly training budget of approximately $1700 per student.

The responses to the question concerning annual cost (fees, books and tuition) to the student (question #29 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs:

Joint Apprenticeship Programs p = $67.86 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs p = $66.42 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs t = $505.07 Industry Average [t = $219.91

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the cost to the student among the joint and nonjoint (X2=0.8896) programs; however, there is a significant difference in the cost to the student among the vo-tech programs and the joint (X2=0.0001) and nonjoint (X2=0.0002) programs. The responses to this question indicate the cost to the students is significantly higher in the vo-tech programs than in the joint or nonjoint programs,






68

which is not surprising since vo-tech students typically pay for their own books, fees and tuition, while the joint and nonjoint students typically pay only for books.

The responses to the question concerning the annual cost per student to the contractor (question #30 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs:

Joint Apprenticeship Programs p. = $/hour assessment
Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs p. = $313.68 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs p. = $301.67 Industry Average = $312.05

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the cost per student to the contractor among the nonjoint and the vo-tech programs (X2=0.9999). The contractor cost for the joint programs is directly dependent upon the number of craft hours worked and is, therefore, variable from year to year and from contractor to contractor. The responses to this question indicate a strong tie between apprenticeship programs and vo-tech training providers.

The responses to the question concerning the annual cost per student to the public education finance committee (question #31 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs:

Joint Apprenticeship Programs p. = $3176.57 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs p = $3912.00 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs p = $3884.42 Industry Average p = $3788.70

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the cost to the public education finance committee among the various programs (X2=0.1159). Seven of the 19 joint programs (37%) and 20 of the 24 nonjoint programs (83%) report receiving public funding. Officials at the F-DOE






69

hypothesize, and this is supported by enrollment data, that there is a higher percentage of joint apprenticeship programs taught in publicly funded institutions than the 37% who reported FTE funding (vo-tech programs report enrolling 92% of all registered apprentices).

The question concerning the program's estimated expenditure to educate each student per year (question #32 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs:



Joint Apprenticeship Programs p = $2381.21 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [t = $992.92 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs [t = $3072.00 Industry Average t = $1990.13

The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicate no significant difference in the program expenditures among the joint and vo-tech (X2=0.0904) programs; however, there is a significant difference in the program expenditures among the nonjoint and the joint (X2=0.0236) and vo-tech (X2=0.0316) programs. The responses to this question indicate the nonjoint programs devote fewer monetary resources to craft training than do the other programs.

The cost information presented on the previous pages (questions 29, 30, 31 and 32 in Appendix A) must be considered suspect. The annual cost per student to the public education finance committee is based on FTE funding from the Department of Education and is conspicuously different than actual funding provided. The reasons for these discrepancies may be that

1. The individual was unaware of the actual dollar amounts.
2. The individual was confused about what the question was asking.






70

3. The funding levels were considered confidential by the individual
committees.
4. The individual purposely responded with inaccurate information.
5. The dollar amounts may be skewed due to sample size.
6. All training costs may not have been considered.



The actual equation for determining program funding allocations from the F-DOE is




program
FTE cost =
factors

weighted base district declining hold
E student cost + enrollment + sparsity + harmless
students allocation differential supplement supplement adjustment factor

STATE
PL US
= LOCAL
FEFP
DOLLARS




Where
Program Cost Factor = Determined by the Legislature Base Student Allocation = Determined by the Legislature
District Cost Differential = Determined by the Commissioner
Declining Enrollment Supp. = Calculated Annually
Sparsity Supplement = Based upon Population Hold Harmless Adjustment = Based upon Enrollment






71

The FTE funding equation can be reduced to an equation that is applicable to each school district. The simplified equation for arriving at the appropriate FTE funding dollar amount for apprenticeship is W HRS
FTEA = RS *FTEi. FTE




Where
FTEA = FTE dollar allocation per apprentice
FTE,, = Industrial Education weighted FTE
FTEb = FTE base dollar value
HRS, = Yearly hours per week of on-the-job training
HRSs = Standard hours per year (180-day/year program)
W, = Number of weeks worked per year


Therefore, using fiscal year 1991-1992 data, the apprenticeship FTE funding allocation was

50 25
$5,131.04 = 50 25 1.477 $2501.05 900



This dollar allocation to the public education finance committee is clearly in excess of the $3788.70 calculated using the responses provided by the construction craft training providers.

Additional information has been provided by the F-DOE to more accurately

estimate the FTE funding for both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship training programs in Florida. Postsecondary, publicly funded, vocational and technical education centers located throughout the state reported, for funding purposes, 3,179 construction trades






72

apprentices enrolled during fiscal year 1991-1992. A further breakdown of this figure estimates that approximately 1,893 of these apprentices are enrolled in joint apprenticeship programs, with the remaining 1,286 apprentices enrolled in nonjoint apprenticeship programs. Therefore, estimated FTE funding for construction apprenticeship is approximately $9,713,058 annually for joint training programs and $6,598,518 annually for nonjoint training programs, or a total of $16,311,576 annually for vo-tech centers only.

The FTE funding calculation for the construction craft related job preparation training programs at vo-tech centers vary slightly: FTEjp = FTEi. FTEb

Where

FTEjp = FTE dollar allocation per job prep student
FTE,, = Industrial Education weighted FTE
FTEb = FTE base dollar value

Therefore, using fiscal year 1991-1992 data, the vo-tech FTE funding allocation was $3,694.05 = 1.477 $2501.05

Information provided by the F-DOE indicates there were approximately 5,095 students enrolled in construction-related vo-tech job prep programs during fiscal year 1991-1992. Therefore, the FTE funding for vo-tech job prep programs for fiscal year 1991-1992 was approximately $18,821,189.

The cost of construction-related craft training, both apprenticeship and job

preparation, funded through F-DOE's vocational and technical training programs was approximately $16,311,576 for apprenticeship training and $18,821,189 for job preparation training, or a total of $35,132,765 for fiscal year 1991-1992. If the






73

variations in individual craft apprenticeship training program durations are considered, the average annual number of apprenticeship completions is approximately 879 per year, or an average funding level of approximately $18,900 per apprenticeship completion. If the projected dropout rate is considered for job preparation programs, the average annual number of job prep graduates is 1,308 students, or an average annual funding level of approximately $14,390 per job prep graduate.

The F-DOE currently establishes enrollment ceilings or caps for the adult job preparatory--vocational and adult supplemental--vocational program group titles (Florida Department of Education, 1993). If these ceilings were raised to allow a 200% increase in apprenticeship training levels (80% of the calculated demand), the additional annual funding requirement would be approximately $33 million of additional FTE funding, or a total annual FTE funding of approximately $68 million state wide.

Florida Statute 239.117 specifies students who are enrolled in approved

apprenticeship programs are exempt from any requirement for the payment of fees for instruction, provided the contributions of facilities, personnel or equipment made on behalf of the students equal or exceed the total value of fee exemptions (Florida Department of Education, 1993). The postsecondary adult education instruction fees for fiscal year 1993-1994 range from $0.33 to $0.63 per contact hour, with the norm being $0.56. The Fitzgerald Act requires "a minimum of 144 hours per year of organized technical instruction." The number of contact hours per year in apprenticeship programs typically ranges from 150 hours to 180 hours per year. Therefore, for craft apprenticeship training programs taught in postsecondary






74

institutions, the apprenticeship committee contribution in facilities, personnel or equipment must equal approximately $100.00 per apprentice per year (180 contact hours $0.56 = $100.80). If these costs are passed directly to the customer, assuming the apprentice works the normal 2,000 hours per year (50 weeks 40 hours/week), the cost to the customer would be approximately $0.05 per apprentice manhour.



Analysis of Follow-up Survey Instrument


Each of the respondents to the initial survey instrument was given the

opportunity to request a summary copy of the survey instrument results. Sixty of the training providers requested a summary copy of the results. The researcher included an additional survey instrument designed to test the training provider's opinions concerning the following proposed recommendations. Statistically valid conclusions concerning the opinions of the entire training provider population cannot be drawn from the results of this follow-up survey. Tables 4-12 through 4-21 are the question summaries of the follow-up survey instrument.



Table 4-12 Introduction of career awareness programs in Florida's middle
schools
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree

# % # % # % # %
23 85 4 15 & & ""






75

Table 4-13 Introduction of school-to-work transition and/or youth
apprenticeship programs in Florida's high schools
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree
# % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 1 4 2 7



Table 4-14 Development of stronger contractor ties with postsecondary
construction craft training providers
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree
# % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 2 7 1 4



Table 4-15 Apprenticeship training providers contracting with postsecondary
institutions to provide the academic-related instruction
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree

# % # % # % # % 15 56 9 33 1 4 2 7



Table 4-16 Requiring standard skill certification of all apprenticeship
graduates
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree
# % # % # % # % 20 74 5 19 2 7 4:






76

Table 4-17 Requiring standard skill certification of all vo-tech job
prep graduates
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree
## % # % # %

18 67 9 33



Table 4-18 Requiring all construction craft instructors to complete six
construction- and/or craft-related continuing education units every
two years
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree

# % # % # % # % 10 37 10 37 5 19 2 7



Table 4-19 State of Florida providing tax incentives to contractors who
establish and maintain registered apprenticeship training programs
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree

# % # % # % # % 18 67 7 26 2 7



Table 4-20 Increasing the annual number of apprenticeship graduates from
879 per year to 2,700 per year within 5 years (a 200% increase)
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree

# % # % # % #4 5 19% 14 51 7 26 1 4 5 19






77

Table 4-21 Increasing the Department of Education funding to expand the
number of apprenticeship graduates
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree
# % # % # % # % 17 62 4 15 1 4 5 19


The responses to the follow-up survey indicate a strong to moderate agreement from the training providers to each of the proposed recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations and potential execution impediments are be discussed in the Recommendations section of Chapter V.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


This concluding chapter presents a summary of the research findings,

conclusions drawn from the research, recommendations for improving construction craft training in Florida and recommendations for further research. The final section includes concluding remarks from the researcher.


Summary


The central hypothesis of this study was that the construction industry was

training insufficient numbers of individuals to meet the industry's annual demand for skilled craft workers. The U.S. Department of Labor study How Workers Get Their Training: A 1991 Update (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992) illustrated that, nationally, 38% of the construction trades work force reported receiving some type of informal on-the-job training (of these individuals, approximately 10% also reported receiving postsecondary school-based job preparation training), 19% of the work force reported a formal company-based program as their source of training (apprenticeship programs), 4% reported receiving "other" training, with the remaining 39% of the craft work force declaring they have received no formal or informal craft training. Other construction industry observers suggested the construction industry was providing training opportunities to approximately two-thirds of the projected number of craft workers needed by the industry (Gasperow, 1990). The purpose of this study was to test this 78






79

premise by using Florida as a paradigm, quantifying the actual number of individuals in formal construction craft training programs, and developing a simulation procedure that accurately delineates Florida's annual need for skilled construction craft workers.

The literature review indicated construction industry observers consider vo-tech job preparation training a complement to apprenticeship training, not a substitute for apprenticeship training. Classroom-only, construction-related job prep training was viewed as providing only elementary vocational skills and deficient in providing the student with crucial elements of career preparedness (Kenny, 1988). The formal structure and skilled craft worker supervision of the apprentice's on-the-job training were considered the most valuable sources of skill development. However, the literature also suggested the theoretical aspects of each craft was most effectively presented in an academic setting (Rubens, 1980).

The research procedure at F-BAT and F-DOE identified every registered craft training provider in Florida. These identified craft providers were subdivided into three groupings: joint apprenticeship training providers, nonjoint apprenticeship training providers and vo-tech job preparation training providers. A survey instrument was designed and distributed to each of the identified training providers. The statistical analyses, which used a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance technique, were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers. Since the entire verifiable population of formal construction craft training providers was identified and sampled, and a 38% overall response rate to the survey instrument was generated, statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data derived from the primary survey instrument.






80

A systems dynamics model of the construction craft training process was developed that utilized information derived from the construction craft training provider survey and the BLMI's annual industry and occupational employment projections. The model simulation verified that only 16% (900 individuals) of the industry's projected annual demand for journeyman-level craft workers (5,750 individuals) was being filled by apprenticeship program completers, with an additional 19% (1,100 individuals) of the yearly demand being filled by semi-skilled vocational and technical education job preparation program graduates. The results of the construction craft training model simulation indicated that annual apprenticeship completions were scarcely sufficient to fill either the annual projected departures (813 individuals) or the annual expected growth (747 individuals) for foreman-level craft worker labor pool, but not both. Simulation results also indicated that annual job prep graduations were explicitly incapable of filling either annual projected departures (2,185 individuals) or annual expected growth (2,005 individuals) for the journeymanlevel craft worker labor pool. This investigation confirmed that Florida's construction industry is providing the craft work force with insufficient formal training opportunities.

The State of Florida currently provides approximately $35 million annually to support postsecondary construction craft training programs. If vo-tech job preparation program training levels remain constant and apprenticeship training programs taught in publicly funded educational institutions are increased by 200% over the next five years (from approximately 900 annual completions to 2,700 annual completions), the state FTE expenditure for support of construction craft training will be approximately $68






81

million annually (1993 dollars). Although this additional $33 million of FTE funding may seem like an unreasonably high figure, it represents an increase in F-DOE FTE funding of approximately 0.7% over 1993-1994 appropriation levels of $4,526,812,758 (Florida Department of Education, 1993).

The model simulation also suggested the skilled craft labor work force turnover rate is approximately once every 22 years. If there is no increase in construction craft training, by the year 2010 the percentage of the construction work force having received some type of formal craft training will have dropped to 22%, with 78% of the craft work force having received only informal on-the-job training or, more likely, no training at all.

Increasing construction craft training levels decreases employee turnover by 18%, increases productivity by an average of 18% and results in an average rate of return on the training investment of 2:1 (Liska, 1994). Completion of a formal craft training program also beneficially affects employee on-the-job safety by reducing accident frequency, which lowers contractors' workers compensation costs (Dedobbeleer, Champagne and German, 1990). Everything presented in this treatise supports increasing construction craft training efforts, and review of the relevant literature found no studies that suggested any drawbacks associated with craft training.


Conclusions


This analysis of construction craft training presented the general belief of

industry observers that increasing the current levels of craft training would benefit the construction industry by






82

1. Reducing industry-wide craft labor departures,
2. Increasing the quality of the constructed product,
3. Increasing the individual's productivity,
4. Reducing the contractor's worker's compensation costs, and
5. Increasing the craft worker's lifetime earning potential.

To realize these expected benefits, the industry must develop increased contractor commitment, specifically from the nonunion sector of the industry, to support, promote and expand current levels of apprenticeship craft training (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980; Metcalf, 1985).

The construction craft training simulation model confirmed the industry is training insufficient numbers of craft workers to meet the annual labor demand for skilled craft workers. If the industry were to increase its commitment to craft training and provide apprenticeship opportunities to workers at approximately 80% of the annual demand for skilled workers, a 200% increase in apprenticeship training levels would have to occur.

It is difficult to understand why contractors in Florida are either unwilling or unable to increase apprenticeship training levels. There are virtually no barriers to implementing improved craft training programs. Florida Statute 239.117 exempts students enrolled in approved apprenticeship programs from the payment of tuition. This exemption means that there is no cost to the student for instruction if the apprenticeship committee contracts with a local public education committee or institution. The negotiated cost to the apprenticeship committee would, therefore, be reduced to the contributions of facilities, personnel, tools and training materials that must equal or exceed the total value of the fee exemptions.






83

Training Provider Recommendations


The follow-up survey instrument tested the initial survey respondents' attitudes toward the proposed recommendations in this section. In every case, the follow-up survey respondents supported the following recommendations.



Secondary Education System

The principal recommendation for the secondary school system is to implement construction-related school-to-work transition programs. Ideally, these programs would begin in the 7" through 10'h grades with a career awareness program that would be coupled with both site and employer visits. The school system would then establish a "youth apprenticeship" partnership with local contractor organizations. In the I 11h grade, students would spend 30% of their time receiving on-the-job construction craft training (typically during the summer months). By the 12'" grade students would spend 50% of their time receiving on-the-job training (one semester of the school year), with the remaining 50% of their time spent on required academic instruction supplemented with craft-related instruction. Upon graduation students would be tested and receive a Standard Skill Certification if they passe the examination.

Virtually every national contractor trade organization provides a skill

development curriculum. There is no need for school districts to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to construction-related curricula. These existing training curricula can be modified to fit the needs of individual programs.

At the time of this writing, there is also a push in Florida to establish schoolto-work transition programs in the form of tech prep and youth apprenticeship






84

programs. Orange and Seminole counties in Florida (Orlando area) have established construction craft youth apprenticeship programs at the secondary school level.

There is also a national belief that some form of school-to-work transition

program is necessary at both the secondary and postsecondary level. Senate Bill 1993 S. 1396 will provide seed money to the states to facilitate youth apprenticeship demonstration projects. A focus of this legislation is to provide career awareness that will, hopefully, reduce the squandering of training funds and resources at the postsecondary level.



Postsecondarv Education System

The postsecondary educational institutions that provide construction craft

training programs, both job prep and apprenticeship, should develop stronger ties with local contractor organizations. This would benefit both parties. Strong contractor ties would allow the school to know if the provided training meets industry needs and would provide contractors with access to a better-trained work force.

Each graduate of a vo-tech job prep training program should be required to complete a Standard Skill Certification examination. Only by the uniform testing of each graduate would program training effectiveness be determined.



Apprenticeship Training System

Apprenticeship training providers should contract with local postsecondary educational institutions, wherever practical, to provide the academic portion of






85

apprenticeship training. This arrangement would allow the apprenticeship committee access to state funding.

Each graduate of an apprenticeship training program should be required to

complete a Standard Skill Certification examination. Only by the uniform testing of each apprentice would program training effectiveness be determined.



Construction Craft Training Instructors

The paramount problem with providing high-quality construction craft training is providing erudite, craft-orientated instructors. The minimum requirements for each craft training instructor should be completion of a formal craft apprenticeship program, a journeyman's license in the specific craft and a minimum of two years' experience at the journeyman level.

The skills and abilities of the craft instructors are paramount to the effectiveness of the training program. To enhance the caliber of instruction, construction craft training instructors should be certified as instructors in the particular craft. Craft training instructors also should be required to complete six constructionand/or craft-related continuing education units every two years.



State of Florida

It is implausible to expect that the State of Florida could mandate Journeymanlevel craft worker licensing for all crafts. However, since the state is contributing significant resources in support of construction craft training, the state would be well advised to mandate craft worker skill certification for all job prep and apprenticeship






86

training programs supported with public funds. Since the quality of instruction varies from program to program, this is the only feasible way to determine training program effectiveness.

The vast majority of construction craft training programs are being taught in state-funded secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. Since the state is currently underwriting these craft training programs, the state also has the responsibility to supervise instructor competence. A primary method of guaranteeing instructor expertise is to legislatively mandate certification of craft training instructors.

The State of Florida should provide tax incentives for construction contractors who establish and maintain registered craft apprenticeship training programs. Since apprenticeship committees already have the ability to contract with both secondary and postsecondary educational institutions to provide training, the tax incentives should encourage, and also be limited to, the deduction of any fees collected by the apprenticeship committee and the cost of materials and tooling donated to the training programs.

The F-DOE currently has established enrollment ceilings (caps) for adult job

preparatory vocational programs. These enrollment ceilings should be raised to at least 80% of the annual calculated demand for construction craft apprentices.

The State of Florida has, as its primary interest, the goal of providing broadbased construction craft training. The funding levels in excess of $35 million annually and the cyclical nature of the industry dictate the need for broad-based training so individuals will have enough skills to be able to get a job on the next construction project. Narrowly based craft skills will not ensure continuing industry employment.






87

Recommendations for Further Research


Craft Training Providers

A longitudinal study should be undertaken to see how many of the individuals completing both vo-tech job prep and formal apprenticeship training programs continue working in the industry. This type of study could be conducted entirely in Tallahassee by using F-DOE's student records (the student's social security number) and BLMI's employer records (the employee's social security number). Longitudinal studies of this nature would require mainframe computer capability due to the size of the database searches. The benefits of this study would be to help determine training program effectiveness by identifying the number of individuals who have received formal craft training and have left the industry after completing their training. Those crafts with the highest dropout rates could be targeted for further research.

The other area of further research on craft training providers would be to

perform craft training simulation for each of the individual construction crafts. This would help to determine the appropriate training level for each of the individual crafts.



Training Provider Funding Methods

A secondary objective of this investigation was to develop a cost analysis of the construction craft training process. It became apparent during the research phase that the apportionment allocated to the craft training programs was significantly less than the FTE funding levels. The final recommendation for further research would be to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the construction craft training program funding






88

process to determine actual funding levels and verify where and how the money is actually being spent.


Concluding Remarks


Objective evidence was presented confirming that the current levels of

construction craft training are shamefully short of the needs of Florida's construction industry. Without significant increases in craft training levels, serious shortages of skilled craft workers will occur, and these shortages will adversely affect the industry. The construction craft training simulation model presented in this investigation is a tool that can be used by craft training providers and policy setters to determine appropriate levels of construction craft training.




Full Text

PAGE 1

A MODEL OF VOCATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND APPRENTICESHIP CRAFT TRAINING REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA By THOMAS H. GEORGE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1994

PAGE 2

Copyright 1994 by Thomas H. George

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research contained in this dissertation would not have been possible without the valuable assistance of Talmadge Rushing and James Rich, Florida Department of Education; Joseph Stephens, Jr., Florida Department of Labor; and Ambrose Bittner and Bernard Downey, United States Department of Labor. These individuals, along with the assistance of Florida's construction craft training providers, helped strengthen the quality, and ultimate value, of the final document. The support and guidance of the doctoral committee~Dr. Paul Oppenheim, Dr. James Hensel, Dr. Robert Stroh, Dr. Leon Wetherington and Dr. Robert Zieger— also contributed to the final product. Each member provided both instruction and challenge that were essential to the completion of this study. Finally, the author needs to acknowledge Catherine, Mary and the memory of John, without whom this achievement would not have been possible. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ix KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Objectives of the Study 3 Central Hypothesis 4 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6 Construction Craft Training Overview 7 The Mission of Construction Craft Training Programs 7 Labor Relations in the Building Trades 8 Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training 14 Current Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training Practices 18 Construction Craft Related Vocational and Technical Education 21 Sources of Construction Craft Labor Market Information in Florida 25 Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training 25 Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information 26 Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education 27 iv

PAGE 5

System Dynamics Modeling and Simulation 28 III METHODOLOGY 30 Sample Selection 31 Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship Data 31 Florida Department of Education Data 32 Projected Construction Labor Demand 33 Primary Survey Instrument Design 33 Primary Survey Instrument Testing 34 Training Provider Contact 35 Craft Training Model Simulation Development 35 Cost Analyses 38 Follow-up Survey Instrument Design 39 IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 40 Analysis of Initial Survey Instrument Results and Program Completion Rate 42 Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs 45 Estimates of Unregistered Apprenticeship Training Programs 49 Vocational and Technical Education Job Preparation Programs 50 Construction Craft Training Model Simulation Results 54 Construction Craft Training Cost Analyses 63 Analysis of Follow-up Survey Instrument 74 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 Summary 78 Conclusions 81 Training Provider Recommendations 83 Secondary Education System 83 Postsecondary Education System 84 Apprenticeship Training System 84 Construction Craft Training Instructors 85 State of Florida 85 Recommendations for Further Research 87 Craft Training Providers 87

PAGE 6

Training Provider Funding Methods 87 Concluding Remarlcs 88 APPENDICES A CONSTRUCTION CRAFT TRAINING PROVIDER SURVEY 89 B CRAFT TRAINING MODEL SIMULATION RESULTS 118 REFERENCES CITED 136 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 141

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Administration of the craft training program 42 4-2 Training provider's opinion that a one-year preapprenticeship program would help reduce the dropout rate 45 J 4-3 Current student enrollment in apprenticeship craft training programs 46 4-4 Registered apprenticeship completions and projected annual craft labor demand 47 4-5 Current student enrollment in vo-tech job prep training programs ..51 4-6 Vo-tech job preparation graduates and projected annual craft labor demand 52 4-7 "Skilled" craft worker training route 58 4-8 Adequacy of existing classroom facilities 64 4-9 Adequacy of existing shop facilities 65 4-10 Adequacy of existing administrative facilities 65 4-11 Adequacy of training facility location 66 4-12 Introduction of career awareness programs in Florida's middle schools 74 4-13 Introduction of school-to-work transition and/or youth apprenticeship programs in Florida's high schools 75 4-14 Development of stronger contractor ties with postsecondary construction craft training providers 75 4-15 Apprenticeship training providers contracting with postsecondary institutions to provide the academic-related instruction 75 vii

PAGE 8

4-16 Requiring standard skill certification of all apprenticeship graduates 75 4-17 Requiring standard skill certification of all vo-tech job prep graduates 76 4-18 Requiring all construction craft instructors to complete six constructionand/or craft-related continuing education units every two years 76 4-19 State of Florida providing tax incentives to contractors who establish and maintain registered apprenticeship training programs 76 4-20 Increasing the annual number of apprenticeship graduates from 879 per year to 2,700 per year within 5 years (a 200% increase) 76 4-21 Increasing the Department of Education funding to expand the number of apprenticeship graduates 77 C-1 Graphic representation of the helper, vo-tech, nonjoint, and joint rate equation calculations from 1990 to 2005 120 C-2 Graphic representation of the vo-tech graduation and apprenticeship completion rate equations from 1990 to 2005 121 C-3 Graphic representation of the skilled labor requirement rate equations from 1990 to 2005 122 C-4 Graphic representation of the projected labor demand rate equations from 1990 to 2005 123 C-5 Graphic representation of the projected construction project labor rate equations from 1990 to 2005 124 C-6 Graphic representation of the projected construction industry labor departure rate equations from 1990 to 2005 125 C-7 Calculated equation values for the Florida construction craft labor model simulation from 1990 to 2005 126 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3-1 Construction industry craft training model 37 4-1 Construction industry craft training model 55 4-2 Source of craft training for workers filling the demand for journeymenand foremen-level craft workers 60 4-3 Projected skilled labor growth and the supply of formally trained craft workers 61 4-4 Projected skilled labor departures and the supply of formally trained craft workers 62 B-1 Construction industry craft training model 119 IX

PAGE 10

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AF of L American Federation of Labor AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations BCIAC Florida Department of Education, Building Construction Industry Advisory Committee BCTD Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO BLMI Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information CPLR Construction Project Labor Requirement F-BAT Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training F-DOE Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult, and Community Education FEFP Florida Education Finance Program FTE Full-time equivalent students RFP Request for proposal SAC State Apprenticeship Council/Agency US-BAT United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training US-DOL United States Department of Labor X

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A MODEL OF VOCATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND APPRENTICESHIP CRAFT TRAINING REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA By Thomas H. George April 1994 Chairperson: Paul Oppenheim Major Department: M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction Construction industry observers have suggested contractors are currently training approximately two-thirds of the industry's annual need for skilled craft workers. The purpose of this study was to test this premise by using Florida as a paradigm, quantifying the actual number of individuals in formal construction craft training programs, and developing a simulation procedure that accurately delineates Florida's annual need for skilled construction craft workers. The research stratagem at the Florida Departments of Labor and Education identified every registered craft training provider in Florida along with the current enrollment in each program. These craft training providers were subdivided into three groupings: joint apprenticeship programs, nonjoint apprenticeship programs, and vocational and technical education job preparation programs. The entire population of xi

PAGE 12

formal construction craft training providers was surveyed with a 38% overall response rate. The statistical analyses, which use a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance technique, were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers. A systems dynamics model of the construction craft training process was developed that utilized information derived from the construction craft training provider survey and the Florida Department of Labor's annual industry and occupational employment projections. The model simulation verified that only 16% of the industry's projected annual demand for journeyman-level craft workers (5,750 individuals) was being filled by apprenticeship program completers and 19% of the yearly demand was being filled by semi-skilled vocational and technical education job preparation program graduates. The results of the model simulation verified that the annual number of apprenticeship completers was scarcely sufficient to fill either the number of departures or the expected growth of the foreman-level craft worker labor pool and that the armual number of semi-skilled job preparation graduates was explicitly incapable of filling either the projected number of departures or the expected growth of the journeyman-level craft worker labor pool. This investigation confirmed that Florida's construction industry is providing the craft work force with insufficient formal training opportunities. Additional analyses of the research data resulted in conclusions and recommendations that will help the construction industry improve the craft training process. xn

PAGE 13

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Construction craft training has been a contentious issue between contractors and the craft work force for more than a century. In 1888, the National Association of Builders advocated replacing formal apprenticeship training programs with schoolbased vocational training since, the association believed, apprenticeship training was not able to meet the "modern conditions" the industry was facing at the time (Haber, 1930). Even though contractor organizations were successful in establishing schoolbased vocational craft training programs, individual contractors showed little interest £ind were either unwilling or unable to train new workers (Haber, 1930). The study of construction craft training indicates that, historically, contractors who provide training have been interested only in providing minimum levels of training, while craft trade organizations have fought for broad-based craft training. Due primarily to the cyclical nature of the industry, broad-based training has been advocated as a means to provide multiple employment opportunities for the craft worker. The goal of craft training, according to the trade organizations, is not to provide the craft worker with such narrowly defined skills that he/she is unable to find local employment once a project has been completed, but to provide continued industry employment opportunities. 1

PAGE 14

2 All the blame for providing inadequate levels of construction craft training cannot be shouldered solely by the contractors. It is difficult to convince a newly hired employee to spend 6 to 10 hours per week in school, typically during evening hours, while also completing a 40-hour work week. World Bank estimates indicate that individuals who have completed formal vocational and apprenticeship training programs earn approximately 50% more over their lifetimes than individuals who have not completed a formal training program (Metcalf, 1985). This suggests there is a positive association between formal construction industry training and craft worker lifetime earnings. Contractors are, however, in the preeminent position to provide both the incentive and the motivation for craft work force participation in training programs by promulgating the benefits of formal craft training. Statement of the Problem The construction industry currently faces a shortage of skilled craft workers. This scarcity of skilled workers is projected to increase through the end of the 20* century and continue into the 21" century. A potential solution to this problem is for the construction industry to expand the craft training opportunities available to the work force while increasing retention efforts targeted at journeyman-level workers. The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (US-BAT), under the guidelines set forth in the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Programs (29 CFR 29), provides apprenticeship standards for 35 occupational titles in the 20 different trade classifications within the industry (Bureau of Apprenticeship and

PAGE 15

3 Training, 1991). The US-BAT apprenticeship standards for each of the various construction trades address a distinct level of intellectual understanding and manipulative skill ability. The US-BAT has translated these requirements into a different mix of school-based and job-site training for each occupational title. The primary problem, therefore, is not the structure of the training program but the quantity of training currently provided. The fundamental question the construction industry must answer is how many craft workers the industry must train to meet its future labor requirements. Objectives of the Study Currently no objective method exists to determine the appropriate levels of construction craft training. Construction craft unions base the armual number of individuals admitted into apprenticeship training programs on member unemployment levels, while contractors base training decisions on perceived costs; neither method addresses the labor needs of the industry. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to use Florida as the paradigm to 1 Document the current level of construction craft training in registered apprenticeship programs; 2. Determine the current level of construction craft training in postsecondary vocational and technical education job preparation programs (vo-tech job prep); 3. Determine the current statewide construction craft employment projections, both expected separations and projected growth;

PAGE 16

4 4. Develop a construction labor operations research simulation model utilizing projected construction industry labor requirements and current craft training levels; 5. Develop cost analyses of the construction industry training process; and 6. Make recommendations to improve Florida's construction craft training process. The purpose of this study was not to make comparisons about quality variations between the joint (union) and nonjoint (nonunion) apprenticeship programs, but rather to quantify the current levels of both apprenticeship and job prep training currently being carried out by the industry. The main objective of this study was to determine current levels of construction craft training and utilize the operations research model and its computer simulation to estimate the number of craft workers supplying the demand for skilled (journeymanand foreman-level) craft workers who receive no formal craft training. The premise of this study was that the construction industry is not providing enough craft training to meet the industry's demand for skilled craft workers. If this insignificant level of craft training continues, the industry will undergo a significant craft worker skill loss over the next decade. If the current level of formal craft training and its associated costs are determined and analyzed, cost projections can be developed. A central component of this thesis was to approximate the funding commitment required from the construction industry to provide a training level that Central Hypothesis

PAGE 17

meets 80% of the construction industry's projected labor demand for skilled craft workers.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There is a growing belief in the industry that the quantity of construction craft training does not meet the needs of the industry (Fox, 1988; Gasperow, 1990). Industry observers have long realized that craft training is vitally important to the construction industry since training levels directly influence cost, productivity, quality and safety (Weinberg, 1969; Liska, 1994). Three basic methods of providing construction industry training: (1) formal and informal on-the-job training; (2) training off the job in schools and/or training centers; and (3) formal apprenticeship with academic vocational instruction and structured, supervised, on-the-job training. An investigation into current nationwide levels of construction craft training suggests that approximately 19% of craft workers report receiving formal company training, 38% report receiving informal on-the-job training (of these individuals, approximately 10% also report receiving postsecondary, school-based training), 4% report receiving "other" training and 39% report receiving no craft training at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992). Contractors in the industry increasingly recognize that technological change demands continuing education and training for journeyman-level craft workers; however, only 25% of all craft workers report receiving skill improvement training (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992). Improving access to, and availability of, craft training is vital in the effort to provide the construction industry with a craft work

PAGE 19

7 force that has a wide range of job skills and is able to adapt to the constantly changing conditions encountered on a construction job site. Construction Craft Training Overview The Mission of Construction Craft Training Programs Formal craft training, specifically formal craft apprenticeship and to a lesser degree vocational and technical education job preparation programs, in the construction industry is designed to produce a skilled, journeyman-level craft worker who can perform a broad range of tasks, including the fundamentals of the craft and all specialized tasks, largely without direct supervision (Mills, 1972). An examination of the relative merits of academic vocational training coupled with a structured on-the-job training program versus a strictly academic vocational training program indicates that a mixture of on-the-job training and academic classroom training is the most effective method of training semiskilled and skilled craft workers (Franklin, 1973). Experience on previous construction sites combined with task evaluation and layout skills are essential for qualified, journeyman-level craft workers (Mills, 1972). Every viable construction industry craft training program must include a combination of formal, structured, on-the-job training coupled with appropriate vocational schooling (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Perhaps the primary function of legitimate vocational, technical and apprenticeship training programs is to develop the craft work force for the construction mdustry (Foster, 1973). These formal training programs are expected to expose the apprentice to a variety of work and training, both on the job and in the classroom. In

PAGE 20

8 the ideal setting, on-the-job training refers to a systematic process that includes incremental exposure to the diverse elements of the trade; repeated performance of tasks under the direction of a qualified, journeyman-level craft worker; and periodic appraisal of skill development (Franklin, 1973). The training functions of formal programs are not designed to produce semiskilled laborers, but rather a core of broadly skilled craft workers whose skill mastery gives them the distinguished "journeymanlevel craft worker" status (Mills, 1972). Formal training is offered to few young persons entering the construction industry due to the inadequacy of training mechanisms. Many "journeyman-level" craft workers in the construction industry become so without ever obtaining formal instruction. The failure of formal training programs to produce the appropriate number of craft workers can be attributed to a failure of both the planning process and to political opposition from trade unions (Mills, 1972). The problems with formal vocational, technical and apprenticeship programs, along with the solutions, lie within the construction industry itself Labor Relations in the Building Trades The American Federation of Labor (AF of L) issued the formal charter of the Building and Construction Trades Department on March 20, 1908, to the seven founding member unions: Carpenters, Iron Workers, Lathers, Painters, Plumbers, Steam Engineers and Tile Layers (AFL-CIO, 1983). By 1917, membership in construction trades unions constituted more than one-fifth of the entire membership of the AF of L (AFL-CIO, 1983). These early years were marked with interunion

PAGE 21

9 jurisdictional disputes in the unions' struggle for control of the work. During the early 1920s, approximately 95% of all strikes were disputes among trade unions protecting their "trade jurisdiction" from infringement by other unions rather than protecting working conditions and standards from attack by employers (Haber, 1930). Employers often attempted to substitute workers of a lower wage union for workers of a higher wage union, which exacerbated this problem (Haber, 1930). As these early trade unions became more powerful, they began to introduce work rules and establish restrictions on output. These work rules were created either by the unions or the employers, or arrived at jointly, depending upon the nature of the activity controlled by the work rules and the relative bargaining strength of the parties (Haber, 1930). Employers tended to view many of the restrictive union regulations as faulty economic policy; however, the regulations were appropriate policy from the point of view of perpetuating the union and protecting the living standards of the membership (Haber, 1930). Many construction employers were less opposed to recognizing collective bargaining agreements than they were to acquiescing to the regulations the unions enacted in their efforts to protect wages, hours and working conditions (Haber, 1930). The employer-employee relationship in the construction industry began to change during World War II. The war effort created an urgent need for rapidly designed and built defense projects. Many of these large projects were constructed by nationally oriented design-build contractors who had large in-house engineering staffs (Edmister, 1991). When these large, typically unionized contractors entered a local labor market, local union leaders tended to keep a close watch on work assignments

PAGE 22

10 and job conditions and, at times, took positions on jurisdictional issues that most observers regarded as extreme or unwise (Mills, 1972). At times of full employment and favorable market conditions, the unions tended to steadfastly enforce work rules, especially on large construction projects (Haber, 1930). After World War II, many business leaders thought the trade unions were becoming too powerful (Edmister, 1991). Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), partially in response to these perceptions (Zieger, 1986). Although President Harry Truman initially vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress overrode the veto in 1947 (AFL-CIO, 1983). The Taft-Hartley Act outlined union unfair labor practices and also permitted the states to outlaw the closed-union-shop. The following 21 states currently have "right-to-work" laws that legislatively prohibit the closed-union shop (Gall, 1988): State Year Legislation Passed Alabama Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Iowa Kansas Louisiana Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah 1954 & 1976 1954 1947 1951 1947 1947 1947 1954 1947 1947 1947 1955 1953 1947 1947 1943 1947 1947 1957

PAGE 23

11 State Year Legislation Passed Virginia Wyoming 1947 1963 The right-to-work laws in these states encouraged the growth of nonunion construction firms within the state borders. With very few exceptions, these nonunion contractors were initially small firms, competing in local construction markets, with each firm having less than $1 million in annual billings (AFL-CIO, 1983). Congress passed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Landrum-Griffin Act), which allowed union hiring halls to refer members based on seniority, residence, and experience-an exclusive referral system (Perloff, 1981). The Landrum-Griffin Act also authorized collection of training funds and joint administration of union-management training programs (Mills, 1972). This last provision became the cornerstone of the union apprenticeship training programs by providing the mechanism to collect apprenticeship training funds, treated as trust funds, from unionized employers. Training funds, which are primarily collected through a levy attached to the journeyman wage rate, are jointly administered by the apprenticeship training committee (Mills, 1972). Between 1957 and 1962, unemployment in the unionized construction industry was never less than 12% (Perloff, 1981). By 1965, however, union construction unemployment fell to approximately 4% (Perloff, 1981). This low unemployment level was partially responsible for dynamic changes in the construction industry. In certain geographical areas, without fear of outside competition from nonunion firms, construction labor unions were able to gain control over the labor supply and introduce

PAGE 24

inflexible and restrictive work practices, demand and receive higher wages, and enact greater restraints on contractor management (Haber, 1930; Edmister, 1991). Many union business agents began to advocate unreasonable positions on local labor issues while threatening to withhold the services of the union craft worker— a powerful weapon (Borcherding, 1976; Edmister, 1991). Fragmented contractor management associations, which collectively bargained with the trade unions, agreed to union demands rather than face disruptive strikes (Haber, 1930; Edmister, 1991). The driving force behind the escalating wage increases can be attributed to the contour wage theory that postulates local unions were engaged in wage rate leapfrogging during this period (Schulenburger, 1978). In heavily organized areas of the country, local unionized contractors had no incentive to contest unions' demands for higher wages (Maloney, 1978; Edmister, 1991). Each contractor would have the same base labor cost, effectively taking labor out of market competition, and these increased labor costs would be passed on to the owner. Between 1967 and 1974 the construction unions were able to collectively bargain for an average 64.2% wage increase (Perloff, 1981). As construction labor costs began to adversely affect the cost of new facilities, the users of construction services began to organize. The Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable was founded in 1969 and later renamed and combined with other alliances in 1972 to form the Business Roundtable (1983). This organization of chief executives of the nation's largest industrial corporations began to focus on labor costs as a method to reduce construction costs of new facilities. As these owners became aware of the actual costs of restrictive union labor practices and craft jurisdictional disputes, the owners.

PAGE 25

particularly in the South, began to experiment with nonunion construction companies during the early 1970s (Allen, 1988). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Business Roundtable's Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project produced 23 individual reports on specific construction industry problem areas (Business Roundtable, 1983). The summary report identified 57 inefficient work restrictions not required by collective bargaining agreements that inflated union labor costs by an estimated 15% (Business Roundtable, 1983). The construction industry historically has been one of the largest industries in the United States, contributing anywhere from 4% to 5% of the nation's Gross National Product for any given year (United States Bureau of the Census, 1993). Construction industry spending increased from $91.3 billion in 1970 to approximately $400 billion by 1987 (United States Bureau of the Census, 1993). By the late 1970s the average nonunion general contractor, paying two-thirds the union wage rate for labor, had a 6%-7% cost advantage over the unionized general contractor (Diekmann and Peppier, 1984). By 1984, nonunion contractors accounted for more than 70% of the construction dollar volume (Northrup, 1985). The nonunion share of the construction industry market has continued to increase slowly and was approximately 80% of the labor pool by 1993 (Tomsho, 1993). The decUne in unionized construction is further evidenced by employment information compiled by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1973, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the American Federation of LaborCongress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) represented 40% (1,722,000) of the

PAGE 26

14 4.3 million construction workers; by 1987, the BCTD represented only 22% (1,123,000) of the more than 5 million construction workers. Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training The origins of construction industry craft training in the United States date to the British system of trade union structure with its tradition of private sponsorship and funding (Motley, 1907). Throughout the 19* century and continuing until World War I, the construction industry relied on European immigrants for skilled craft labor. In 1888, the National Association of Builders advocated replacing formal apprenticeship training programs with school-based vocational training since, the association believed, apprenticeship training did not meet the "modern conditions" the industry was facing at the time (Haber, 1930). Although contractor organizations at the time were successful in establishing school-based vocational craft training programs, individual contractors showed little interest and were unwilling and/or unable to train new workers (Haber, 1930). By 1928, construction craft apprenticeship training efforts were still haphazard, employer-sponsored, on-the-job training programs without uniform national standards (Haber and Levinson, 1956). These 1920s-era apprenticeship programs were used by both employers and early labor unions as one, and perhaps the primary, method of regulating the number of new workers entering the industry (Franklin, 1973). During the 1930s, when thousands of skilled craft workers were unemployed, union resistance to apprenticeship training programs was intense, and employers were unwilling to assume the costs and obligations of craft training at a time when skilled workers were

PAGE 27

15 readily available (Haber and Levinson, 1956). For these reasons, construction craft training became and has continued to be a contentious issue between employers and the construction craft work force. The only apprenticeship legislation that has been promulgated at the federal level was the passage of the National Apprenticeship Act (Fitzgerald Act) in 1937. In 1911, Wisconsin became the first state to adopt an apprenticeship statute (Glover, 1986). The SmithHughes Act of 1917, which established the legislative origins of vocational education in the United States, was initially intended as a replacement for formal craft apprenticeship (Haber, 1930; Hamilton, 1990). The Fitzgerald Act, which established a uniform federal apprenticeship policy for the United States (29 U.S.C. 50 §1), required the Secretary of Labor to establish standards for apprenticeship training and provided neither encouragement nor incentive for states to get involved in apprenticeship training (Haber and Levinson, 1956). Pursuant to the Fitzgerald Act, the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) established guidelines for apprenticeship training that forced the formalization of training policies in each of the construction crafts. The original national apprenticeship standards were established by national joint apprenticeship committees for each of the building trades, with each committee composed of an equal number of members from the individual BCTD unions and respective national employer associations (United States Department of Labor, 1938). Consequently, the BCTD was the first construction organization to establish formalized apprenticeship training programs for the building trades that followed the US-DOL guidelines (Levitt, 1979).

PAGE 28

16 The requirements were promulgated by the US-DOL, but administration and control of the programs were kept at the local level (Haber and Levinson, 1956). "Labor Standards for the Regulation of Apprenticeship Programs," published in the Code of Federal Regulations, established the minimum standards for sponsors of apprenticeship programs (29, CFR 29.5). Following is a summary of the minimum apprenticeship standards: 1. Initiation of a written apprenticeship agreement 2. Minimum starting age of 16 years 3. Written schedule of work processes the apprentice will learn on the job 4. Minimum of 144 hours per year of organized technical instruction 5. Progressively increasing wage schedule 6. Supervision of on-the-job training and adequate training facilities 7. Periodic review and evaluation of the apprentice's progress, both on the job and in the classroom 8. Cooperation by both employers and employee organizations 9. Recognition of successful completion of the apprenticeship program 10. Training without regard to race, creed or national origin In the United States high school graduates historically have displayed little interest in apprenticeship or skilled blue-collar jobs (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). The educational system and faulty school-to-work transition programs play an important role in this negative attitude (Hamilton, 1990). The United States and Canada are the only two industrialized nations in the world where apprenticeship is not a teenage youth training program (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). In most countries (Germany, Great Britain, Australia and Japan, for example) apprenticeship is a teenage youth employment program. This is not true in the United States, where the construction trades apprentice is older, has more years of general education, is enrolled

PAGE 29

17 for a longer apprenticeship training period, receives less on-the-job supervision, has fewer hours of off-the-job training and has a higher dropout rate (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980; Glover, 1986). The United States is the only country investigated that has not established training councils or industry training boards for apprenticeship training. Thirty-two states do not a have State Apprenticeship Council (SAC), thus making the United States the only industrialized country that relies on an incomplete federal-state system of apprenticeship administration (Glover, 1986). The 28 states and 3 territories that do have an SAC are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Wasliington, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Guam, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin (Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, 1991). Many of these states, facing budgetary shortfalls, are reducing or eliminating SAC funding levels. The Florida legislature has ever eliminated funding for the Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. There also is a serious problem associated with the secondary educational system that until recently has been focused entirely on presenting college preparation course work at the expense of those students who do not attend college. Middle schools and high schools have actively moved away from "industrial arts" class offerings, and career counselors have not effectively promoted the construction industry to students who are not college bound (Federle, Rowings, and DeVany, 1 993). The construction industry's characteristic of undertraining the work force devalues the

PAGE 30

18 work done by all workers, especially the most highly skilled craft workers, and leaves most of the work force with few options for upward social mobility, which also prejudices high school career counselors (Hamilton, 1990). Current Construction Craft Apprenticeship Training Practices Vocational, technical and apprenticeship training and continuing education programs are expensive to establish and administer (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Many employers perceive these training programs as costly propositions that do not pay off, especially when workers are likely to go to work for competitors before employers' training costs can be recovered (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Nontraining employers view the employees and/or other employers as ultimately receiving the training benefits (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). A conflict of interest exists between the construction employers and the work force regarding scope of training. Because building trades craft training is universal in nature, and not firm specific, it is generally cheaper for a contractor to hire craft workers trained by other firms than it is to actually train craft workers (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). The BCTD unions have tried to keep apprenticeship training as extensive as possible to ensure job mobility since extent of training and competence of skilled craft workers are strongly related to craftsmen's ability to secure work (Mills, 1972; Franklin, 1973). The nonunion sector of the construction industry has tried but has not had complete success in enhancing the skills of nonunion construction helpers or "apprentices" (Levitt, 1979). US-BAT has approved national standards for nonunion

PAGE 31

19 apprenticeship training programs; however, nonunion construction firms generally have not been effective in establishing a wide range of vocational and apprenticeship programs (Foster, 1973; United States Department of Labor, 1975). Most nonunion training programs tend to include extensive informal on-the-job training, which typically translates to random observation of others' work (Foster, 1973). At most smaller contractors, the apprentice's time is devoted largely to production work; any training that occurs is largely a by-product (Mills, 1972; Foster, 1973). Essentially, most contractors, both union and nonunion, are not individually equipped to support broad, systematic craft instruction to the untrained or marginally trained work force (Foster, 1973). The largest nonunion firms have established task or modular training programs to train unskilled workers within very narrow task structures (Northrup, 1985). Upon completing a specific task training module, the worker typically receives a certificate of completion (Northrup, 1985). These modular training programs tend to be job specific so the employer can recoup training costs as soon as possible (Business Roundtable, September, 1982; Northrup, 1985). It is unclear whether these narrowly defined training programs provide employees any advantage in securing future employment. There is also a movement within the nonunion sector of the construction industry to promote "competency-based" training for the construction crafts (Northrup, 1992). Competency-based apprenticeship training, as proposed for the construction trades, refers to the practical and theoretical instruction integrated into individual learning packages that enables apprentices to proceed at their own pace (Northrup,

PAGE 32

20 1992). Competency-based training programs are required to meet US-DOL standards, under the guidelines set forth in the 1937 Fitzgerald Act, if the program is to be registered with US-BAT. The length of apprenticeships, as established by US-BAT, tends to reflect differences among the various construction trades. These differences require adjustments in the number of hours required for training in each of the various building crafts. It is difficuh to reduce the time element of vocational and apprenticeship training without impairing training content (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Competency-based apprenticeship and vocational training must not be misused or diminish scope of training. Since the United States tends to train inadequate numbers of construction industry apprentices, journeymen who have graduated from formal apprenticeship programs work more hours annually than do workers who have not completed a formal apprenticeship program (Franklin, 1973; Glover, 1986). Those individuals who complete apprenticeship training are more likely to maintain employment related to their training and usually suffer fewer and briefer periods of unemployment than narrowly skilled craft workers (Franklin, 1973). Graduates of formal apprenticeship programs are broadly trained, adaptable to change, likely to undertake continuing education and more likely to stay with the trade (Franklin, 1973). Apprenticeship training program graduates also are more likely to become craft supervisors (Franklin, 1973). In one study, 39% of construction supervisors had completed a formal apprenticeship training program, whereas only 33% of all journeyman-level craft workers had completed a formal training program, indicating that more craft supervisors tended to be apprenticeship graduates (Franklin,

PAGE 33

21 1973). Studies also have shown that workers with formal apprenticeship instruction are more productive than workers with other types of training (Glover, 1986). Supporters of apprenticeship training claim that underutilization of apprenticeship results in shortages of skilled journeymen that ultimately diminish the quality of the constructed product (Franklin, 1973). Others argue that the primary purpose of formal apprenticeship in the construction industry is to produce a pool of supervisors and key skilled craft workers for any given trade (Northrup, 1985). Construction Craft Related Vocational and Technical Education In the United States, apprenticeship is only one way to acquire construction skills. The primary methods of skill acquisition in the construction industry, both formal and informal, are within the construction industry (Foster, 1970). Nonapprenticeship sources of skill acquisition in the construction industry include training in other industries, vocational and technical schools, military training and informal instruction by friends and relatives (Foster, 1970). Informal training in the construction industry also is gained through unstructured skill acquisition such as observation of others' workmanship. The national shift away from unionized construction and toward nonunion construction has contributed to a restructuring of construction craft training processes. This restructuring has sharply limited traditional apprenticeship and favored vocational education mixed with practical experience (Engineering News-Record, 1992). Assorted local nonunion contractor organizations have developed training programs in the various trades and attempted to implement these programs in local vocational

PAGE 34

22 schools. The community and technical college system has provided facilities and teachers for related instruction for many of these programs. The public role in construction vocational and apprenticeship training is to provide related instruction in the local public school system (Mills, 1972). The problems with nonunion vocational and apprenticeship programs sponsored in community colleges frequently stem from the schools' inability to conduct courses that suit the precise needs and schedules of apprentices, who come from many firms and multiple trades (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980). Uneconomical small classes and individualized instruction typically are required. These problems have limited the success of the vocational and technical education training process in meeting the needs of the construction industry. An appraisal of the various trades in the construction industry suggests that crafts requiring fundamental intellectual ability (electrical, mechanical and sheet metal trades) rely on a more comprehensive school-based training program than the manipulative skilled trades (bricklayer, cement mason and equipment operator), where training is more logically provided on the job site. The differing skill level requirements in each of the various crafts in the building trades suggest there are internal cost efficiencies related to types of course offerings and duration of training programs (Metcalf, 1985). The quality of vocational education and training is highly variable in the building trades and depends on sponsoring organization, location, program orientation and instructor competence (Metcalf, 1985). The highly competitive nature of the construction industry (there are approximately 12,450 active, licensed general

PAGE 35

contractors in Florida), where contracts are awarded based on lowest estimated cost, also precludes inclusion of training costs in contractors' bids (Coble, 1992). Inconsistent quality of these craft training programs can be directly tied to inadequate funding and may stem from employer perceptions about the cost effectiveness of vocational and apprenticeship training (Glover, 1986). Therefore, the case can be developed and presented that supports expansion of either the entire or selected parts of the vocational education and training system. Apprenticeable trades in the construction industry cannot normally be learned exclusively in vocational schools. Vocational and technical education is only the first step in skill development for a journeyman-level craft worker. On-the-job experience is deemed the most important part of the apprenticeship training process (Foster, 1 970; Franklin, 1973). Improved vocational schooling, prior to apprenticeship, is viewed as a supplement to the apprenticeship process (Kenny, 1988). There is little likelihood that vocational education, without structured on-the-job training, is capable of producing a fully trained journeyman. The appropriate vocational education roles in apprenticeships are to provide a source of well-prepared applicants for apprenticeship and serve as a resource in providing the related instruction portion of apprenticeship (Kenny, 1988). The role of vocational education is not to be a substitute for apprenticeship (Kenny, 1988). Extensive use of a narrowly skilled or semiskilled work force requires division of work assignments into simple and repetitive tasks commensurate with the employees' skill levels (Northrup, 1985). These substitute craft workers require close and careful supervision by highly skilled journeymen (Levitt, 1979). The role of the

PAGE 36

24 supervisor becomes critical to the overall progress and quality of the construction project (Diekmann and Peppier, 1984). The supervisor must assume complete control of both planning and sequencing the job and also must handle all tasks outside the normal routine (Levitt, 1979). Technological change and increased mechanization are likely to allow substitution of materials, equipment and semiskilled labor for journeyman skills in the basic trades; however, changing technology demands higher craft worker skill levels in the mechanical and electrical trades. The industry-wide move away from analog control systems to digital instrumentation systems in industrial construction is an example of technological change requiring a more highly skilled craft worker than in the past. These training issues are not new problems to the construction industry. Prior to World War I, the construction industry depended heavily on overseas immigration as the source of skilled labor (Haber, 1930). The restrictions imposed on immigration after World War I eliminated this source of skilled labor. Since the early 1920s contractors have been responsible for providing training for the craft work force (Haber and Levinson, 1956). The industry increasingly recognizes that strengthening contractor commitment to formalized vocational, technical and apprenticeship training programs and expanding contractor cooperation, especially in the nonunion sector of the industry, is necessary if the construction industry is to provide the training necessary to meet the needs of both contractors and employees (Rosenbaum, 1991; Associated General Contractors, 1991; Liska, 1994).

PAGE 37

25 Sources of Construction Craft Labor Market Information in Florida In 1943, Florida was the first state in the United States to pass a right-to-work law (Gall, 1988). Its tradition of nonunion construction has led to a wide variety of vocational and apprenticeship training programs. Formal apprenticeship programs are sponsored by individual construction firms, associations of nonunion employers and associations of union employers. Vocational and technical education programs, taught at both secondary and postsecondary institutions, also are available for some crafts. Florida Department of Labor and Emplovment Security, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training The Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (F-BAT), compiles the apprenticeship records of registered apprenticeship programs in Florida. These records are kept in hard-copy form in Tallahassee. Each registered apprenticeship program is required to establish an apprenticeship committee whose duties must include the following (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1990): 1) Screen and select applicants for apprenticeship 2) Maintain all records for at least 5 years 3) Determine credit to be granted (if any) to applicants for previous experience or education, according to policy 4) Enter into apprenticeship agreements between the apprentice and the committee as program sponsor and submit these agreements to the Registration Agency [F-BAT] for registration 5) Maintain a record of each apprentice's training progress on the job and in related classroom instruction 6) Review regular progress reports for apprentices and recommend actions as appropriate 7) Arrange tests for determining the apprentice's progress in manipulative skills and technical knowledge

PAGE 38

26 8) Notify the Registration Agency [F-BAT] of all other apprentice actions including registrations, reinstatements, cancellations and repeat periods 9) Notify the Registration Agency [F-BAT] when apprentices have satisfactorily completed their apprenticeship and request issuance of a Certificate of Completion to such apprentices 10) Provide for continuous employment of apprentices insofar as possible 11) Secure, if possible, Participating Employer agreements for designated employers and notify the Registration Agency [F-BAT] by copy 12) Hear and adjust complaints of violations and make rulings as deemed necessary 1 3) Recommend such changes in the program as deemed necessary to improve effectiveness and efficiency 14) Notify the Registration Agency's [F-BAT] representative of all apprenticeship committee meetings and make available, upon request, official meeting minutes 1 5) Provide apprenticeship records for review, upon official request of the Bureau's servicing representative 16) In general, be responsible for the successful operation of the program and the welfare of the apprentices by performing the duties listed herein These apprenticeship committee regulations were promulgated under the guidelines established by US-BAT (Florida Statutes, Chapter 38c-16 §1-§10). Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information The Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Bureau of Labor Market Information (BLMI), annually compiles and forecasts industry and occupational employment projections. The BLMI uses 14 different statistical analysis techniques, 7 shift and share models and 7 regression models to simulate individual occupational projections, with each model using both historical and current employer-provided data. The statistical model with j

PAGE 39

27 the best fitting R^, DurbinWatson statistic, or t-statistic for each of the individual employment codes is chosen for inclusion in the general employment model. The BLMI projects construction industry employment rising from 323,278 workers in 1990 to 390,154 workers by the year 2005 (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1992)~an increase in employment of 66,876 workers or 20.69%. These employment figures are broken down into "General Building Contractors," "General Contractors except Building" and "Special Trade Contractors" as well as by craft. The BLMI also predicts the number of yearly openings for each craft. If each of Florida's registered apprenticeship programs and vocational education programs were to train for all the projected openings (growth plus separations)-approximately 11,934 individuals per yearvocational and apprenticeship training for the building trades in Florida would be a significant undertaking. Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education The Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education (F-DOE), compiles the number of students enrolled in vocational and technical education job preparation training programs (vo-tech job prep). The Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, provides funding to local school districts based upon the 1973 Florida Education Finance Program law. Funding calculation is based on number of full-time equivalent students (FTE) (Florida Department of Education, 1993).

PAGE 40

System Dynamics Modeling and Simulation 28 The system dynamics (sometimes referred to as industrial dynamics) approach to model building is a method of interpreting a simplified representation of interacting components that work together for some purpose (Richardson and Pugh, 1981). For construction craft training, these elements would include joint apprenticeship training programs, nonjoint apprenticeship training programs, vo-tech job prep programs and informal on-the-job training combined with job-site requirements for construction craft labor and expected craft labor market activity. The following seven basic components must be addressed when using a system dynamics strategy for problem solving (Richardson and Pugh, 1981; Roberts, 1983): 1) Problem identification and definition 2) System conceptualization 3) Model formulation 4) Analysis of model behavior 5) Model evaluation 6) Policy analysis 7) Model use or implementation These components form the foundation for developing a fundamental understanding of any complex process— in this case, the construction craft training procedure. The system dynamics theory was originally developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Industrial Management (now the Alfred P. Sloan School of Management), as a methodology for designing and/or reorganizing corporate organizational policy (Roberts, 1978). This approach ties the segmented functional features of formal organizations into an integrated model of varying rates of flow and responsively changing levels of accumulation. In the model development process, decisions are viewed as controllers and represented as control valves (Richardson and

PAGE 41

29 Pugh, 1981). These decisions are represented by mathematical equations, based in part on information about the initial contents of the source level, and control the rate of flow to the destination level (Roberts, 1983). The equations, mathematical descriptions of the operations of the system being simulated, represent either implicit or explicit procedures developed for the system operations (Roberts, 1978). By quantifying the current behavior of the construction craft training process, projections of the consequences of continuing the current magnitude of craft training can be constructed. If the system dynamics modeling technique were to be used on the construction craft training process, a conceptual, prototype paradigm that delineated current construction industry processes of craft skill development could be produced. This computer simulation of the model would be designed as a flexible tool to quantify the craft training process and eliminate informal subjective preconceptions about craft training. The final operating model could be used by policy makers to supplement construction craft training decisions and to determine consequences of maintaining current construction craft training policies.

PAGE 42

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The fundamental purpose of this research was to develop an operations research simulation model of the construction industry's craft labor training process. Complementing the contractor's training decision with an objective procedure, one that takes the subjective bias out of the training decision, could increase the construction industry's commitment to craft training. Of primary importance to this model development was information quantifying current enrollment levels in both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship training programs and in the publicly funded vo-tech job prep programs. This information was collected by the Florida Departments of Labor and Education and provided to the researcher. Also of crucial influence on the model was the projected dropout rate associated with each of the three training programs. This information was discovered through a survey instrument distributed to training providers throughout Florida. Identifying projected demand for construction craft labor was also a critical portion of the craft training model simulation development process. The BLMI performs regression analyses on historical and current employment databases to project fiiture labor requirements for the state. 30

PAGE 43

Once the data were collected and compiled, the simulation model was constructed and tested. Results of model simulation were used to support recommendations and defend conclusions. Cost analyses were developed using data provided by F-DOE. These cost analyses were used to identify the magnitude of funding provided to support construction craft training. Finally, a follow-up questionnaire was developed and sent to respondents of the primary survey instrument. This questionnaire was created to test respondents' reactions to proposed recommendations. Sample Selection Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship Data Florida is one of 3 1 states or territories that have a State Apprenticeship Council/Agency (SAC). Apprenticeship records for the state are kept at the F-BAT office in Tallahassee; however, copies also are kept in the US-BAT state office, also located in Tallahassee. Florida operates under a Sunshine in Government Law that opens most state agency records to the public for review. To gain access to the USBAT records, the researcher would have to sue under the Freedom of Information Act, a convoluted and lengthy process. Upon a request from the researcher, F-BAT supplied a dated list of all registered apprenticeship training providers in Florida. FBAT does not, however, summarize apprenticeship records or keep running totals of the number of apprentices enrolled in each of the registered training programs. Apprenticeship records are kept in hard-copy form at the F-BAT office and are not

PAGE 44

32 computerized. Therefore, the researcher made a formal, written request access to the F-BAT paper records. Formal approval for access to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Bureau of Job Training, apprenticeship records was granted in June 1993. The researcher manually searched the paper records to determine 1. The number of registered apprentices in each program, 2. The number of registered programs currently inactive and 3. Any programs that were not identified in the original listing. As of December 1992, there were 58 joint apprenticeship training providers offering 83 craft training programs with an enrollment of 1,795 apprentices, and 39 nonjoint apprenticeship training providers offering 92 craft training programs with an enrollment of 1,671 apprentices. The updated list of training providers was used as part of the database for the survey instrument; the number of joint and nonjoint registered apprentices was used in the simulation model. Florida Department of Education Data The F-DOE provided, upon request, a listing of all construction-related course work taught in publicly funded secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. The F-DOE data identified 64 postsecondary vo-tech job prep training providers offering 185 construction-related programs with 5,095 enrolled students. Identification of the postsecondary vo-tech job prep training providers completed the final portion of the database for the survey instrument, and enrollment data were used in the simulation model. The F-DOE data also identified 81 apprenticeship training programs with 3,179 enrolled students, and 114 supplemental (typically continuing

PAGE 45

33 education) training programs with 4,526 enrolled students, who were taught and funded through vo-tech programs. This information was used in the cost analyses. Projected Construction Labor Demand The BLMI employment calculation methodology, which is performed under annual grants from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, is uniform throughout the United States. The Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections 1990-2005 handbook identifies 40 individual constructioncraft-related occupations. The handbook summarizes construction employment by Occupation Code and Industry Code. The researcher used the BLMI summary Occupation Code 87000000, "Construction Trades & Extractive Occupations," number rather than the employment calculations for each of the individual craft occupations or the Industry Code figures, although either of these methods would have been acceptable. Primary Survey Instrument Design In January 1993, the researcher was awarded a research contract from the Florida Department of Education, Building Construction Industry Advisory Committee (BCIAC), under the title "Recommended Changes to the Existing Vocational/Continuing Education Programs for the Building Trades." The request for proposal (RFP) was specific and enumerated 3 1 research questions to be answered, 20 of which were applicable to construction industry training providers (joint and nonjoint apprenticeship programs and vo-tech job prep programs). Additional questions that

PAGE 46

34 facilitated and supported the operations research model for this treatise were developed and included. The survey instrument (see Appendix A) was developed utilizing "The Total Design Method" (Dillman, 1978). Open-ended questions were developed to allow respondents to describe their biggest problems and suggest improvements for the training process. Closed-ended questions with ordered choices were developed to distinguish opinion differences among the three groups of training providers. Partially closed-ended questions were developed to identify numerical cost and enrollment differences among the three groups of training providers. Primary Survev Instrument Testing The preliminary survey instrument was developed and reviewed by the BCIAC project coordinator. Once changes were made to the survey instrument, a list of candidates was developed who would test the preliminary survey instrument. The draft survey instrument was tested on a non-union contractor in South Florida, a union contractor in Southern California, a United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry local union in a Middle Atlantic state and a vo-tech training provider in north-central Florida. Extensive review of the survey instrument also was conducted with F-DOE and F-BAT representatives. Final review of the survey instrument and printing was completed in May 1993, with initial distribution on June 1, 1993.

PAGE 47

35 Training Provider Contact The researcher attempted to contact each of the identified training providers by telephone five calendar days prior to the June 1, 1993 initial survey instrument distribution. Ten calendar days after the initial mailing the researcher again attempted to contact telephonically each of the identified training providers who had not already responded. Twenty-eight days after the initial mailing, the researcher mailed an additional complete survey instrument to each of the 131 nonrespondents. The survey cutoff date was August 10, 1993, ten weeks after the initial mailing. Craft Training Model Simulation Development The system dynamics approach to understanding the construction craft training process began with an effort to understand the system of constraints that has created and sustained the craft training problems. Relevant data for understanding the problem were gathered from a variety of sources including a review of the relevant literature, interviews with informed persons at both the United States and Florida Departments of Education and Labor and specific quantitative investigations. Initial craft training model development began with a set of logical diagrams showing the cause-and-effect correlation of the construction labor training process. The preliminary craft training model was simulated using one specific craft (electricians) to debug the mathematical equations. The model was then run with the entire set of construction industry craft training data. The output data from the model were then evaluated and compared with the BLMI employment projections. Probable

PAGE 48

36 consequences of continuing current levels of construction craft training were then scrutinized. Of primary interest during the development of the craft training simulation model was to have the model specifically identify the number of individuals who fill the labor demand for skilled craft workers and receive no initial, formal craft training. The model was constructed so that the only way to receive the skilled craft worker status of journeyman or foreman level was to enter the construction industry through a registered apprenticeship program with structured on-the-job training, through a votech job prep program coupled with informal on-the-job training upon graduation, or though the helper route without any formal training and only informal on-the-job training. The last path is the area of major concern. A simplified version of the craft training model is presented in Figure 3-1. A complete version of the model is presented in the next section. The computer software utilized for this project was Professional DYNAMO Plus, published by PughRoberts Associates, 1986. This software was created to simplify the development and simulation of multiple variable models and/or processes. The programming language allows the researcher to concentrate on the correlations within the model instead of struggling with complex software programming problems. This software permitted the researcher to model the construction craft training process and among other things, calculate the number of individuals who fill the annual demand for skilled construction craft labor and receive no formal craft training.

PAGE 49

37 O C3 fa

PAGE 50

38 The model also was developed so that the researcher would be able to compare simulation results to the BLMI craft labor projections. A calculation variable was included in the model to track the total number of craft workers required (variable CPLR). This variable allowed the researcher to verify the model was ruiming correctly and that the model's projected employment calculations closely matched the BLMI labor projections. Cost Analyses During the research process, it was discovered that apprenticeship training providers had the ability to contract with publicly funded educational institutions to furnish the academic portion of the training. In return, these educational institutions were able to claim PTE funding from F-DOE for each student. Information was requested from F-DOE to allow the researcher to calculate approximate FTE funding levels. Funding levels were calculated for both apprenticeship craft training and for construction-related vo-tech job prep training. A series of questions was included in the primary survey instrument to help provide an accurate estimate of the training providers' variable cost of providing construction craft training. These questions also focused on the fees charged by the training provider to the student, contractor and public education finance committee. The question concerning cost to the public education finance committee was used to determine the accuracy of the responses to the cost questions. I

PAGE 51

39 Follow-up Survey Instrument Design Each of the respondents to the primary survey instrument was given the opportunity to request a copy of the survey summary results. The researcher included a short follow-up questionnaire that tested the respondent's reaction to the proposed recommendations for improving construction craft training in Florida. This entire research methodology was designed to describe the craft training process currently being conducted in Florida. The literature review indicated that there was no objective method to determine the appropriate amount of craft training which the construction industry should be conducting. This research was designed to be a first step in providing objective measures to determine suitable craft training levels.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of this research project and the discussion of the findings are broken into the following segments: 1. Analysis of the initial survey instrument results and program completion rate 2. Registered apprenticeship training programs 3. Estimates of unregistered apprenticeship training programs 4. Vocational and technical education job preparation programs 5. Model simulation results 6. Training cost analyses 7. Analysis of the follow-up survey instrument resuhs The survey instrument that was distributed to verifiable construction craft training providers covered topics not included in this dissertation. Therefore, only the relevant portions of the survey instrument are included in this section. A complete copy of the initial survey instrument and the follow-up survey instrument, including tabulation and interpretation of each of the responses, is included in Appendix A. The statistical analysis technique employed on the initial questionnaire responses was a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance, in this case the Wilcoxon test. The nonparametric one-way analysis of variance method was chosen because the research questions were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers—joint, nonjoint and vo-tech programs. The Wilcoxon technique

PAGE 53

41 assigns a rank to each response, then computes a x" value that is designed to detect differences among the three groups of training providers while eliminating the influence of outliers on the computed value. The a = 0.05 decision criterion tests the null hypothesis that the population mean response ranks are not significantly different. For values of Pr{x^} < 0.05, there is a significant difference among the sample mean ranks; for values of Pr{x^} > 0.05, there is no significant difference among the sample mean ranks. The symbol \i indicates mean response value. Where appropriate, the symbol # was used to indicate the number of responses received from the training provider group-either joint apprenticeship program, nonjoint apprenticeship program, vo-tech job prep program or the total number of responses to the specific question. The symbol % was used to indicate the percentage of responses received from the training provider group. In some instances, the % column totals may add to greater than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. Each of the respondents to the initial survey instrument was given the opportunity to request a summary copy of the survey results. Sixty of the training providers requested a summary copy of the results. The researcher included a short, follow-up survey instrument designed to test the training provider's impressions of the researcher's proposed recommendations. Statistically valid conclusions concerning the opinions of the entire training provider population cannot be drawn from the results of this follow-up survey.

PAGE 54

42 Analysis of Initial Survey Instrument Results and Program Completion Rate The overall response rate of training providers to the initial survey instrument was 38%. Responses were received from a representative cross section of each of the sample population subsets. Since the entire verifiable population of formal construction craft training providers was identified and sampled, statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data derived from the primary survey instrument. Table 4-1 is the analysis of the survey instrument response rate. Table 4-1 Administration of the craft training program (see question #1 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs State-Wide Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Total number of training providers 58 100 39 100 64 100 161 100 Number of survey respondents 19 32 24 62 18 28 61 38 Number of surveys returned as undeliverable 3 5 5 13 8 5 Number of duplicate programs omitted from sample population 3 5 3 2 Number of surveys returned after the cutoff date 2 3 2 1 The researcher attributes the 28% response rate from vo-tech training providers as primarily due to the survey mailing dates in June. During this time frame, publicly funded postsecondary educational institutions are on summer break. In hindsight, the

PAGE 55

survey instrument response rate from these institutions probably would have been higher if distribution had taken place during the normal September-to-May school year. One subject is central to each of the sections that follow in this chapter: How do we retain the individuals who enter these training programs but elect to discontinue their training prior to completing the program? Although this question is not the principal focus of this treatise, it does influence the recommendations made. One particular problem that needed to be addressed was to determine the expected apprenticeship completion rate for both the joint and nonjoint programs and the expected graduation rate for the vo-tech programs. Two questions were asked in the survey instrument that addressed these issues. The expected completion or graduation rate (see question #14 in Appendix A) for the various programs was as follows: Joint Apprenticeship Programs |j, = 63.9% Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [i = 51.1% Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs \i = 52.9% Industry Average ^ = 54.4% The statistical analysis of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the training program completion (or graduation) rates among the various programs (x^=0.2678). A statistical analysis of the completion rates, by craft, also was performed and showed no significant difference among the craft completion rates (x^=0.7020). The responses to this question indicate that approximately 4 of every 10 new apprentices drop out of the training programs before completing the training program.

PAGE 56

44 The highest rate of student dropout (see question #15 in Appendix A) was expected to occur during the first year of training. The mean dropout rates were as follows: Joint Apprenticeship Programs \i = 7.7 months Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs \x = 9.3 months Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs [i = 7.3 months Industry Average ^ = 8.3 months The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the dropout rate among the various programs (x^=0.1385). The dropout rate within the first year of training suggests either a lack of understanding of the realities of the construction industry by individuals entering craft training programs or the imposition of an impediment that prevents continuation of the training program. Training providers indicated a belief that some form of industry awareness program would help reduce the training program dropout rate. Table 4-2 shows the response to the introduction of a preapprenticeship program. The follow-up survey tested the attitudes toward initiating a school-to-work transition program in the secondary school system. Reducing the training program dropout rate would allow for better utilization of scarce resources.

PAGE 57

45 Table 4-2 Training provider's opinion that a one-year preapprenticeship program would help reduce the dropout rate (see question #16 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Strongly agree 4 21 11 46 2 11 17 28 Moderately agree 8 42 9 38 10 56 27 44 Moderately disagree 4 21 2 8 4 22 10 16 Strongly disagree 3 16 2 8 2 11 7 12 Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs The enrollment information in Table 4-3 shows the number of apprentices enrolled in both joint and nonjoint registered apprenticeship programs as of December 1992. This information was developed tlirough research performed at the Florida Bureau of Apprenticeship in Tallahassee. The information in Table 4-4 indicates the average annual level of apprentice completions for each of the identified crafts, the projected annual number of craft openings and the percentage of craft openings currently being filled by apprenticeship completers. The information describing projected number of craft openings was developed from the BLMI data published in the Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections 1990 2005 (Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 1992).

PAGE 58

Table 4-3 Current student enrollment in apprenticeship craft training programs Craft Number of Apprentices in Joint Programs Number of Apprentices in Nonjoint Programs Total Boilermaker 0 0 0 Brick Mason & Stone Mason 38 5 43 Carpenter 259 31 290 Cement & Terrazzo Finisher 0 0 0 Electrician ^^I^^Wil IWl^Al 1 474 933 1,407 Elevator Constructor 0 8 0 Equipment Operator 17 0 17 Insulator 67 0 67 Ironworker 140 0 140 Millwright 33 0 33 Painter 60 6 66 Plasterer, Lather & Drywall Finisher 7 0 7 Plumber 209 238 447 Pine Fitter 189 2 191 Sprinkler Fitter 41 106 147 Roofer 50 0 50 Sheet Metal Worker 186 110 296 Refrigeration Mechanic 14 201 215 Tile Setter & Marble Finisher 6 29 35 Other (Glazier) 2 2 4

PAGE 59

47 Table 4-4 Registered apprenticeship completions and projected annual craft labor demand Craft Training Sponsor Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs, State-Wide Total Annual Average Number of Apprentice Completions Projected Annual Number of Craft Openings Percent of Annual Craft Openings Filled by Apprenticeship Electrician Nonjoint Joint Total 21 11 32 233 95 328 Growth 664 Depart. 648 Total 1,312 25 Plumber Nonjoint Joint Total 16 9 25 60 102 Growth 481 Depart. 478 Total 959 19 Pipe Fitter Nonjoint Joint Total 3 10 13 1 38 39 w /Plumber w/Plumber Sprinkler riner Nonjoint Joint Total 6 1 7 35 _8 43 w/PI umber w/Plumber Carpenter Nonjoint Joint Total 10 6 16 8 65 73 Growth 975 Depart. 1 ,068 Total 2,043 4 Millwright Nonjoint Joint Total 0 5 5 0 _8 8 Growth 22 Depart. 37 Total 59 14 nooring insiaiier Nonjoint Joint Total 0 0 0 0 _0 0 Growth 45 Depart. 43 Total 88 0 Drywall rinisner Nonjoint Joint Total 1 1 2 0 2 2 Growth 103 Depart. 154 Total 257 1 Lather Nonjoint Joint Total 0 1 0 0 0 Growth 8 Depart. 13 Total 21 0 Plasterer Nonjoint Joint Total 1 2 3 0 _0 0 Growth 38 Depart. 102 Total 140 0 Refrigeration Mechanic &/or HVAC Installer Nonjoint Joint 1 oiai 11 2 1 o 67 _4 7-1 / 1 Growth 371 Depart. 236 12 Sheet Metal Duct Installer Nonjoint Joint Total 11 4 15 26 47 73 Growth 41 Depart. 49 Total 90 81 Painter Nonjoint Joint Total 2 4 6 2 20 22 Growth 645 Depart. 569 Total 1,214 2

PAGE 60

48 Table 4-4— continued Craft Training Registered Annual Projected Percent of Sponsor Apprenticeship Average Annual Annual Craft Training Number of Number of Openings Filled Programs, Apprentice Craft by State-Wide Completions Openings Apprenticeship Total Ironworker Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 70 Joint 6 4Z Depart. 105 27 Total 7 47 Total 175 Hooter 0 0 Growtti 207 Joint 2 17 Depart. 142 5 Total 2 17 Total 349 Equipment j 0 Growth 98 Ooerator Joint Total 5 6 J 6 L/cpdl I. Total 194 3 Tile Setter Nonjoint 1 10 Growth 29 Joint 2 _2 U6pan. AH HO 16 Total 3 12 1 otai 1 1 Glazier Nonjoint 2 1 Growth 63 Joint 2 _1 ueparx. / D 1 Total 4 2 1 oiai Asbestos Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 45 Worker/ Joint 3 V7 Depart. 1 c:o 1 9 Total 4 17 Total 197 Insulator _. Elevator Mnn joint 1 2 Growth 8 Constructor Joint 0 0 Depart. ^ o 12, 10 Total 1 2 Total oi d.\ Nonjoint 0 0 Growth 5 Joint 3 _0 Depart. 9 0 Total 3 0 Total 14 Brick Mason Nonjoint 2 2 Growth 96 Joint 3 13 Depart. 147 6 Total 5 15 Total 243 Concrete & Nonjoint 1 0 Growth 126 Terrazzo Joint ^_ _0 Depart. 336 0 Finisher Total 2 0 Total 462 Boilermaker Nonjoint A U n Growth 6 Joint 0 _0 Depart. 0 Total 0 0 Total 17 Other Trades Growth 239 Depart. 138 Total 377 Totals Nonjoint 92 447 Growth 4,385 Joint 83 432 Depart. 4,670 10 Total 175 879 Total 9,055

PAGE 61

49 The data presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 indicate that, for virtually every craft within the industry, the current level of craft apprenticeship training in Florida is insufficient to meet the expected manpower needs of Florida's construction industry. Sheet metal duct installer is the exception due, primarily, to the low projected armual demand (90) and the high training level in the four joint programs (47 annual completions). Industry wide, the average annual level of apprenticeship completions is 879 completions per year; projected industry growth and separations average 9,055 per year. This information provides evidence that only 10% of the construction industry's annual demand for craft workers is being filled by formally trained craft workers. Estimates of Unregistered Apprenticeship Training Programs Estimates of the number of unregistered craft training programs were impossible to make. There was, however, ancillary evidence that some of these unregistered programs were being taught in the postsecondary vo-tech institutions. The F-BAT records indicated an enrollment level of 3,463 individuals in registered apprenticeship programs. The F-DOE records indicated an enrollment of 3,179 individuals in vo-tech apprenticeship programs, or 92% of the F-BAT number. There also were 4,526 individuals enrolled in vo-tech construction craft related supplemental (typically continuing education) training programs. The F-DOE does not require contractor organizations to register their "apprenticeship" training programs with the F-BAT as a precursor for these organizations to contract with publicly funded vo-tech programs to provide the academic portion of the craft training process. Officials at

PAGE 62

50 F-DOE believes there are "unregistered apprenticeship" vo-tech training programs being offered in Florida; however, research conducted for this dissertation v^as not designed to detect these programs. The reasons employer associations did not make the effort to register these programs was not clear, but the supposition was that they were either unwilling or unable to meet the F-BAT stipulations (see Chapter 2). Meeting these apprenticeship training program guidelines is not a difficult process. Virtually every national construction employer association provides apprenticeship training programs that have been approved by US-BAT. These are the same programs the local employer associations adopt and modify to meet the needs of local employers. Unless the national training program is drastically modified, F-BAT approval is a predictable and customary process. Vocational and Technical Education Job Preparation Programs The data in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 were derived from the vo-tech job preparation enrollment information for fiscal year 1991-1992. Table 4-5 includes total enrollment figures for construction-related vo-tech job prep programs. Table 4-6 shows the average annual level of job prep graduates for each of the identified crafts, adjusted for the expected drop-out rate; projected annual number of craft openings; and percentage of craft openings currently being filled by job prep graduates. The projected number of craft openings information was developed by the BLMI data.

PAGE 63

51 Table 4-5 Current student enrollment in vo-tech job prep training programs Craft Number of Students in Vo-tech Job Prpn Prnnram
PAGE 64

Table 4-6 Vo-tech job preparation graduates and projected annual craft labor demand Craft Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs, State-Wide Total Average Annual Number of Graduates Projected Annual Number of Craft Openings Percent of Annual Craft Openings Filled by Job Prep Graduates Electrician 38 222 Growth 664 Separations 648 Total 1,312 2 Plumber 15 82 Growth 481 Separations 478 Total 959 9 Pipe Fitter w/Plumber w/Plumber w/Plumber w/Plumber Sprinkler Fitter 1 2 w/Plumber w/Plumber Carpenter 54 157 Growth 975 Separations 1,068 Total 2,043 a Millwright 1 1 Growth 22 Separations 37 Total 59 o Flooring Installer 0 0 Growth 45 Separations 43 Total 88 0 Drywall Finisher 1 III 1 w 1 1 w 1 1 6 Growth 103 Separations 154 Total 257 o Lather 0 0 Growth 8 Separations 13 Total 21 0 Plasterer 0 0 Growth 38 Separations 102 Total 140 0 Refrigeration Mechanic &/or HVAC Installer 43 810 Growth 371 Separations 236 Total 607 133 Sheet Metal niift tn^t^ll LyUV^l IIIOIClll^l 2 3 Growth 41 Separations 49 Total 90 o Painter 0 0 Growth 645 Separations 569 Total 1,214 0 Ironworker 1 1 Growth 70 Separations 105 Total 175 1

PAGE 65

53 Table 4-6~continued Craft Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs, State-Wide Total Average Annual Number of Graduates Projected Annual Number of Craft Openings Percent of Annual Craft Openings Filled by Job Prep Graduates Roofer 0 0 Growth 207 Separations 142 Total 349 0 Equipment Onerator 0 0 Growth 98 Separations 96 Total 194 0 Tile Setter 2 8 Growth 29 Separations 48 Total 77 10 Glazier 1 0 Growth 63 Separations 76 Total 139 0 Asbestos Worker/ Insulator 0 0 Growth 45 Separations 152 Total 1 97 6 Elevator Constructor 0 0 Growth 8 Separations 13 Total 21 0 Stone Mason 0 0 Growth 5 Separations 9 Total 14 0 Brick Mason 27 16 Growth 96 Separations 147 Total 243 7 Concrete & Terrazzo Finisher 0 0 Growth 126 Separations 336 Total 462 0 Boilermaker 0 0 Growth 6 Separations ^^_ Total 17 0 Other Trades Growth 239 Separations 138 Total 377 Total (adjusted for Refrig. Mech.) 186 1,105 Growth 4,385 Separations 4,670 Total 9,055 12 The total average graduation column total is adjusted to projected labor demand for refrigeration mechanics. The projected annual number of construction craft

PAGE 66

54 openings for refrigeration mechanics is the projected demand minus the annual number of apprenticeship graduates (607-71) or 536 armual openings. The supply of vo-tech job prep graduates is 271 individuals greater than the demand. Construction Craft Training Model Simulation Results The Construction Craft Training Model (Figure 4-1) shows the craft progression from unskilled and semiskilled to the skilled craft worker status of journeyman and foreman. The only means to achieve this skilled worker status is by (1) completing either a joint or nonjoint apprenticeship program with its structured and supervised on-the-job training component, (2) graduating from a vo-tech job prep program coupled with a period of informal on-the-job training upon graduation or by (3) progressing through the helper route and receiving only informal on-the-job training. Since it has already been shown that registered apprenticeship programs and vo-tech job prep programs fill only a small portion of the construction industry's annual demand for labor, the question arises: How many individuals fill the annual demand for skilled construction craft labor without receiving any formal skill training? The construction craft training model and its computer simulation were designed to calculate the number of individuals who fill the demand for skilled construction craft workers but receive no formal craft training~the helper path. Initial craft levels in each of the labor pools were determined using the formula described by Levitt (1979) in Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the U.S. and the current percentages of unionized construction craft workers in the United States (20%) (Tomsho, 1993). The number of individuals enrolled in each of the joint and nonjoint

PAGE 67

55 O 00 o C/3 C o 1/1 c o U op

PAGE 68

56 apprenticeship programs and the vo-tech job prep programs was determined using information provided by F-BAT and F-DOE. The annual level of industry separations and growth was determined from the BLMI data. All this information was used to determine the rate equations (Rl through R25) in the model. The construction craft training model was simulated using Professional DYNAMO Plus software published by Pugh-Roberts Associates, 1986. The computer simulation was first tested on the electrical construction trade. Electricians were chosen because the craft labor projections were straightforward and the craft training rates were among the highest in the industry. Once the model was tested and debugged using the electrical craft data, the model was reformulated to use craft training levels and projected labor demand data for the entire construction industry. The computer simulation results presented in this section apply to the entire construction industry. Complete simulation results for the construction industry and an explanation of each of the rate equations are included in Appendix B. The areas of primary interest are the expected number of individuals completing both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship programs, expected number of individuals graduating from vo-tech job prep programs and projected demand for skilled craft workers during the 15-year calculation period. The analysis of the simulation model indicates that over the period of 1990 to 2005, the construction industry replacement demand for skilled craft workers— the separation and growth calculations for journeymen and foremen (X of equations R5, R6, R7 & R8)"Was calculated to be approximately 103,243 skilled craft workers. If there is no increase in

PAGE 69

57 apprenticeship and/or job prep training, demand for skilled craft workers will be filled according to the following formulas: The supply of craft workers graduating from vo-tech job prep programs is expected to be 2005 i?5 = 17,440 y=1990 The supply of craft workers completing nonjoint apprenticeship programs is expected to be 2005 E ^6 = 7,152 3;=1990 The supply of craft workers completing joint apprenticeship programs is expected to be 2005 5^ = 6,912 >'=1990 The projected demand for skilled labor is expected to be 2005 Y: {R,^R,^R,) = 103,243 J =1990 The expected labor departures from the skilled labor pools (journeymen and foremen) is also of concern: 2005 E (^25^ ^26) = 39,852 + 14,907 = 54,759 >'=1990 Using these calculations, joint apprenticeship programs are expected to fill

PAGE 70

58 6.7% of the demand for skilled workers, nonjoint apprenticeship programs are expected to fill 6.9% of the demand for skilled workers, vo-tech job prep programs are expected to fill 16.9% of the demand for skilled workers, while approximately 69.5% of the demand for skilled craft workers will be filled by individuals who have received no formal craft training (see Table 4-7). Table 4-7 "Skilled" craft worker training route Training Route Number of "Skilled" Craft Workers Percent of "Skilled" Craft Workers Helper with informal on-the-job training 71,739 69.5 Vo-tech job prep with informal on-the-job training 17,440 16.9 Nonjoint apprenticeship with formal on-the-job training 7,152 6.9 Joint apprenticeship with formal on-the-job training 6,912 6.7 Total 103,243 100 This model also indicates that the expected number of formal apprenticeship completions is insufficient to replace the number of supervisory craft workers (foremen) leaving the industry during this calculation period (14,907 departures vs. 14,064 completions). The initial journeymen and foremen labor pool levels were 110,059 and 41,127 craft workers, respectively, or an estimated total of 151,186 skilled craft workers in the construction labor pool. This calculates to one skilled craft labor force turnover approximately every 22 years. 151,186 Original Skilled Craft Labor Pool Level = 22 years 1 03 ,243 Ne w Entrants into Skilled Labor Pool 15Year Calculation Period

PAGE 71

Therefore, by the year 2015, unless the current levels of formal construction craft training are increased significantly approximately 70% of the "skilled" craft work force will have received the majority of their training by observing other craft workers who may or, more likely, may not know how to properly perform the work. The current levels of construction craft training will lead to a serious decline in the skill level of the construction craft work force. Figures 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 show projected demand for skilled craft workers and sources of craft training. Figure 4-2 shows projected demand, both growth and departures, and the increasing industry reliance on informal on-the-job training as the primary skill development tool and training source for the craft work force. Figure 4-3 shows projected growth of the skilled craft work force and supply of formally trained craft workers. Figure 4-4 shows projected departures of the skilled craft work force and supply of formally trained craft workers. Interestingly, the supply of apprenticeship-trained craft workers is approximately equal to either the projected craft labor growth or the projected number of craft departures of foremen-level craft workers, but not both. In addition the supply of vo-tech-trained craft workers is insufficient to meet either the projected growth or the projected number of departures of journeymen-level craft workers.

PAGE 72

60 I >
PAGE 73

61

PAGE 74

62

PAGE 75

Construction Craft Training Cost Analyses 63 Many cost items must be considered when analyzing the expense of providing construction craft training, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Tooling & equipment costs 2. Training material costs 3. Instructor salaries 4. Instructor continuing education training 5. Facilities overhead 6. Administrative overhead A series of questions was asked of the training providers to determine these costs, and others, and to determine any possible revenue sources and funding amounts. Responses to these questions were met with incomplete results that will be discussed later in this section. One of the first items that had to be considered was to determine the existing training program's maximum yearly training capacity for new students (see question #11 in Appendix A). The mean responses for the individual training programs were Joint Apprenticeship Programs \x = 25 students Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs = 23 students Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs fi = 16 students Industry Average |a = 24 students The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the maximum yearly training capacity of the various programs (x^=0.3254). The responses to this question indicate that a maximum yearly class size of 20 to 25 students would be possible for the existing training infrastructure.

PAGE 76

64 The most costly item faced by construction craft training providers is investment in physical training facilities. Tables 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10 present the responses of the training providers as to adequacy of existing training infrastructure, classroom facilities, shop facilities and administrative facilities. Responses to these questions indicate that the current classroom, shop and administrative facilities used to provide construction craft training are considered adequate for existing training levels. Table 4-8 Adequacy of existing classroom facilities (see question #18 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 15 79 10 42 10 56 35 57 Moderately adequate 4 21 12 50 5 28 21 34 Moderately inadequate 1 4 3 17 4 7 Completely inadequate *

PAGE 77

65 Table 4-9 Adequacy of existing shop facilities (see question #19 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 14 74 7 29 8 44 29 48 Moderately adequate 4 21 13 54 5 28 22 36 Moderately inadequate 1 5 3 13 5 28 9 15 Completely inadequate 1 4 1 2 Table 4-10 Adequacy of existing administrative facilities (see question #20 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 17 90 15 63 10 56 42 69 Moderately adequate 2 11 7 29 4 22 13 21 Moderately inadequate 1 4 2 11 3 5 Completely inadequate 1 6 1 2 A final question concerning training facilities asked whether the location of the training program meets the needs of the students. Responses to this question indicate the current location of the facilities were adequate to meet the needs of the students.

PAGE 78

66 Table 4-11 Adequacy of training facility location (see question #34 in Appendix A) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 14 74 11 46 11 61 36 59 Moderately adequate 4 21 13 54 7 39 24 39 Moderately inadequate * Completely inadequate The responses of the training providers indicate that the existing training infrastructure is adequate to meet current enrollment needs. To determine the mean aimual enrollment in existing training programs, the current average level of armual joint and nonjoint apprenticeship completions and vo-tech graduations data in Tables 4-4 and 4-6 can be compared with the verified number of training programs, also in Tables 4-4 and 4-6. The following is a comparison of the mean current annual student enrollment calculations for the various programs with the mean annual training capacity data: Mean Mean Enrollment Capacity Joint Apprenticeship Programs = 5 students = 25 students Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [X = 5 students = 23 students Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs |,i = 6 students = 16 students Industry Average fa = 5 students = 24 students This comparison indicates a conspicuous underutilization of capacity in existing training programs, which suggests that major capital investments would not be required

PAGE 79

to develop additional training facilities if there were a significant (200%) increase in construction craft apprenticeship training. A series of questions was asked of the training providers in an attempt to determine: 1. Annual training program budget 2. Annual cost to the student 3. Annual cost per student to the contractor 4. Annual cost per student to the public education finance committee 5. Program's estimated annual expenditure per student The response to the question concerning the annual training budget (question #28 in Appendix A) was insufficient to draw any statistically valid conclusions; however, the few complete responses that were received suggested a yearly training budget of approximately $1700 per student. The responses to the question concerning annual cost (fees, books and tuition) to the student (question #29 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs: Joint Apprenticeship Programs \i = $67.86 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [i = $66.42 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs [i = $505.07 Industry Average \x = $219.91 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant difference in the cost to the student among the joint and nonjoint (x^-0.8896) programs; however, there is a significant difference in the cost to the student among the vo-tech programs and the joint (x"=0.0001) and nonjoint (x^=0.0002) programs. The responses to this question indicate the cost to the students is significantly higher in the vo-tech programs than in the joint or nonjoint programs.

PAGE 80

68 which is not surprising since vo-tech students typically pay for their own books, fees and tuition, while the joint and nonjoint students typically pay only for books. The responses to the question concerning the annual cost per student to the contractor (question #30 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs: Joint Apprenticeship Programs \i = $/hour assessment Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs |i = $313.68 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs |a = $301.67 Industry Average |i = $312.05 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the cost per student to the contractor among the nonjoint and the vo-tech programs (x^=0.9999). The contractor cost for the joint programs is directly dependent upon the number of craft hours worked and is, therefore, variable from year to year and from contractor to contractor. The responses to this question indicate a strong tie between apprenticeship programs and vo-tech training providers. The responses to the question concerning the annual cost per student to the public education finance committee (question #3 1 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs: Joint Apprenticeship Programs = $3176.57 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs |i = $3912.00 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs |i = $3884.42 Industry Average ^ = $3788.70 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates no significant differences in the cost to the public education finance committee among the various programs (x^=0.1159). Seven of the 19 joint programs (37%) and 20 of the 24 nonjoint programs (83%) report receiving public funding. Officials at the F-DOE

PAGE 81

69 hypothesize, and this is supported by enrollment data, that there is a higher percentage of joint apprenticeship programs taught in publicly funded institutions than the 37% who reported FTE funding (vo-tech programs report enrolling 92% of all registered apprentices). The question concerning the program's estimated expenditure to educate each student per year (question #32 in Appendix A) produced the following mean costs: Joint Apprenticeship Programs |i = $2381.21 Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs [i = $992.92 Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs [i = $3072.00 Industry Average |a = $1990.13 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicate no significant difference in the program expenditures among the joint and vo-tech (x^=0.0904) programs; however, there is a significant difference in the program expenditures among the nonjoint and the joint (x'^=0.0236) and vo-tech (x^=0.0316) programs. The responses to this question indicate the nonjoint programs devote fewer monetary resources to craft training than do the other programs. The cost information presented on the previous pages (questions 29, 30, 31 and 32 in Appendix A) must be considered suspect. The annual cost per student to the public education finance committee is based on FTE funding from the Department of Education and is conspicuously different than actual funding provided. The reasons for these discrepancies may be that 1. The individual was unaware of the actual dollar amounts. 2. The individual was confused about what the question was asking.

PAGE 82

70 1 3. The funding levels were considered confidential by the individual committees. 4. The individual purposely responded with inaccurate information. 5. The dollar amounts may be skewed due to sample size. 6. All training costs may not have been considered. The actual equation for determining program funding allocations from the F-DOE is program PTE cost factors weighted base ^'^J"„f declining sDarsitv ^"^^ PTE student differential ^ enrollment + j^jjjgjjf + harmless students allocation factor supplement adjustment STATE PLUS LOCAL PEEP DOLLARS Where Program Cost Factor = Base Student Allocation = District Cost Differential = Declining Enrollment Supp. = Sparsity Supplement = Hold Harmless Adjustment = Determined by the Legislature Determined by the Legislature Determined by the Commissioner Calculated Annually Based upon Population Based upon Enrollment

PAGE 83

71 The FTE funding equation can be reduced to an equation that is appHcable to each school district. The simplified equation for arriving at the appropriate FTE funding dollar amount for apprenticeship is FTE. = — FTE. FTE. A fjj^^ b s Where FTE, = FTE dollar allocation per apprentice FTEi, = Industrial Education weighted FTE FTE, = FTE base dollar value HRS,^, = Yearly hours per week of on-the-job training HRS, = Standard hours per year (180-day/year program) w„ = Number of weeks worked per year Therefore, using fiscal year 1991-1992 data, the apprenticeship FTE funding allocation was $5,131.04 = ^Ojl^ ^ 1 ^ $2501.05 900 This dollar allocation to the public education finance committee is clearly in excess of the $3788.70 calculated using the responses provided by the construction craft training providers. Additional information has been provided by the F-DOE to more accurately estimate the FTE funding for both joint and nonjoint apprenticeship training programs in Florida. Postsecondary, publicly funded, vocational and teclinical education centers located throughout the state reported, for funding purposes, 3,179 construction trades

PAGE 84

72 apprentices enrolled during fiscal year 1991-1992. A further breakdown of this figure estimates that approximately 1,893 of these apprentices are enrolled in joint apprenticeship programs, with the remaining 1,286 apprentices enrolled in nonjoint apprenticeship programs. Therefore, estimated PTE funding for construction apprenticeship is approximately $9,713,058 annually for joint training programs and $6,598,518 annually for nonjoint training programs, or a total of $16,311,576 annually for vo-tech centers only. The PTE funding calculation for the construction craft related job preparation training programs at vo-tech centers vary slightly: FTEj, = FTE.^ FTE, Where PTEjp = PTE dollar allocation per job prep student PTEj^^ = Industrial Education weighted PTE FTEb = PTE base dollar value Therefore, using fiscal year 1991-1992 data, the vo-tech PTE funding allocation was $3,694.05 = 1.477 $2501.05 Information provided by the F-DOE indicates there were approximately 5,095 students enrolled in construction-related vo-tech job prep programs during fiscal year 1991-1992. Therefore, the PTE funding for vo-tech job prep programs for fiscal year 1991-1992 was approximately $18,821,189. The cost of construction-related craft training, both apprenticeship and job preparation, funded through F-DOE's vocational and technical training programs was approximately $16,311,576 for apprenticeship training and $18,821,189 for job preparation training, or a total of $35,132,765 for fiscal year 1991-1992. If the

PAGE 85

variations in individual craft apprenticeship training program durations are considered, the average annual number of apprenticeship completions is approximately 879 per year, or an average funding level of approximately $18,900 per apprenticeship completion. If the projected dropout rate is considered for job preparation programs, the average annual number of job prep graduates is 1,308 students, or an average annual funding level of approximately $14,390 per job prep graduate. The F-DOE currently establishes enrollment ceilings or caps for the adult job preparatory— vocational and adult supplemental—vocational program group titles (Florida Department of Education, 1993). If these ceilings were raised to allow a 200% increase in apprenticeship training levels (80% of the calculated demand), the additional annual funding requirement would be approximately $33 million of additional FTE funding, or a total annual FTE funding of approximately $68 million state wide. Florida Statute §239.117 specifies students who are enrolled in approved apprenticeship programs are exempt from any requirement for the payment of fees for instruction, provided the contributions of facilities, personnel or equipment made on behalf of the students equal or exceed the total value of fee exemptions (Florida Department of Education, 1993). The postsecondary adult education instruction fees for fiscal year 1993-1994 range from $0.33 to $0.63 per contact hour, with the norm being $0.56. The Fitzgerald Act requires "a minimum of 144 hours per year of organized technical instruction." The number of contact hours per year in apprenticeship programs typically ranges from 1 50 hours to 1 80 hours per year. Therefore, for craft apprenticeship training programs taught in postsecondary

PAGE 86

74 institutions, tlie apprenticeship committee contribution in facilities, personnel or equipment must equal approximately $100.00 per apprentice per year (180 contact hours $0.56 = $100.80). If these costs are passed directly to the customer, assuming the apprentice works the normal 2,000 hours per year (50 weeks 40 hours/week), the cost to the customer would be approximately $0.05 per apprentice manhour. Analysis of Follow-up Survey Instrument Each of the respondents to the initial survey instrument was given the opportunity to request a summary copy of the survey instrument results. Sixty of the training providers requested a summary copy of the results. The researcher included an additional survey instrument designed to test the training provider's opinions concerning the following proposed recommendations. Statistically valid conclusions concerning the opinions of the entire training provider population cannot be drawn from the results of this follow-up survey. Tables 4-12 through 4-21 are the question summaries of the follow-up survey instrument. Table 4-12 Introduction of career awareness programs in Florida's middle schools Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 23 85 4 15 •X, •V •X,

PAGE 87

75 Table 4-13 Introduction of school-to-work transition and/or youth apprenticeship programs in Florida's high schools Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 1 4 2 7 Table 4-14 Development of stronger contractor ties with postsecondary construction craft training providers Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 2 7 1 4 Table 4-15 Apprenticeship training providers contracting with postsecondary institutions to provide the academic-related instruction Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 15 56 9 33 1 4 2 7 Table 4-16 Requiring standard skill certification of all apprenticeship graduates Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # 20 74 5 19 2 7

PAGE 88

76 Table 4-17 Requiring standard skill certification of all vo-tech job prep graduates Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 18 67 9 33 •a* X, 'I* '1* Table 4-18 Requiring all construction craft instructors to complete six constructionand/or craft-related continuing education units every two years Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 10 37 10 37 5 19 2 7 Table 4-19 State of Florida providing tax incentives to contractors who establish and maintain registered apprenticeship training programs Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 18 67 7 26 2 7 Table 4-20 Increasing the annual number of apprenticeship graduates from 879 per year to 2,700 per year within 5 years (a 200% increase) Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 14 51 7 26 1 4 5 19

PAGE 89

77 Table 4-21 Increasing the Department of Education funding to expand the number of apprenticeship graduates Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 17 62 4 15 1 4 5 19 The responses to the follow-up survey indicate a strong to moderate agreement from the training providers to each of the proposed recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations and potential execution impediments are be discussed in the Recommendations section of Chapter V.

PAGE 90

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This concluding chapter presents a summary of the research findings, conclusions drawn from the research, recommendations for improving construction craft training in Florida and recommendations for further research. The final section includes concluding remarks from the researcher. Summary The central hypothesis of this study was that the construction industry was training insufficient numbers of individuals to meet the industry's annual demand for skilled craft workers. The U.S. Department of Labor study How Workers Get Their Training: A 1991 Update (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992) illustrated that, nationally, 38% of the construction trades work force reported receiving some type of informal on-the-job training (of these individuals, approximately 10% also reported receiving postsecondary school-based job preparation training), 19% of the work force reported a formal company-based program as their source of training (apprenticeship programs), 4% reported receiving "other" training, with the remaining 39% of the craft work force declaring they have received no formal or informal craft training. Other construction industry observers suggested the construction industry was providing training opportunities to approximately two-thirds of the projected number of craft workers needed by the industry (Gasperow, 1990). The purpose of this study was to test this 78

PAGE 91

79 premise by using Florida as a paradigm, quantifying the actual number of individuals in formal construction craft training programs, and developing a simulation procedure that accurately delineates Florida's annual need for skilled construction craft workers. The literature review indicated construction industry observers consider vo-tech job preparation training a complement to apprenticeship training, not a substitute for apprenticeship training. Classroom-only, construction-related job prep training was viewed as providing only elementary vocational skills and deficient in providing the student with crucial elements of career preparedness (Kenny, 1988). The formal structure and skilled craft worker supervision of the apprentice's on-the-job training were considered the most valuable sources of skill development. However, the literature also suggested the theoretical aspects of each craft was most effectively presented in an academic setting (Rubens, 1980). The research procedure at F-BAT and F-DOE identified every registered craft training provider in Florida. These identified craft providers were subdivided into three groupings: joint apprenticeship training providers, nonjoint apprenticeship training providers and vo-tech job preparation training providers. A survey instrument was designed and distributed to each of the identified training providers. The statistical analyses, which used a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance technique, were designed to detect response differences among the three groups of training providers. Since the entire verifiable population of formal construction craft training providers was identified and sampled, and a 38% overall response rate to the survey instrument was generated, statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data derived from the primary survey instrument.

PAGE 92

80 A systems dynamics model of the construction craft training process was developed that utilized information derived from the construction craft training provider survey and the BLMI's annual industry and occupational employment projections. The model simulation verified that only 16% (900 individuals) of the industry's projected armual demand for journeyman-level craft workers (5,750 individuals) was being filled by apprenticeship program completers, with an additional 19% (1,100 individuals) of the yearly demand being filled by semi-skilled vocational and technical education job preparation program graduates. The results of the construction craft training model simulation indicated that annual apprenticeship completions were scarcely sufficient to fill either the annual projected departures (813 individuals) or the annual expected growth (747 individuals) for foreman-level craft worker labor pool, but not both. Simulation results also indicated that atmual job prep graduations were explicitly incapable of filling either annual projected departures (2,185 individuals) or annual expected growth (2,005 individuals) for the journeymanlevel craft worker labor pool. This investigation confirmed that Florida's construction industry is providing the craft work force with insufficient formal training opportunities. The State of Florida currently provides approximately $35 million annually to support postsecondary construction craft training programs. If vo-tech job preparation program training levels remain constant and apprenticeship training programs taught in publicly funded educational institutions are increased by 200% over the next five years (from approximately 900 annual completions to 2,700 annual completions), the state FTE expenditure for support of construction craft training will be approximately $68

PAGE 93

81 million annually (1993 dollars). Although this additional $33 million of FTE funding may seem like an unreasonably high figure, it represents an increase in F-DOE FTE funding of approximately 0.7% over 1993-1994 appropriation levels of $4,526,812,758 (Florida Department of Education, 1993). The model simulation also suggested the skilled craft labor work force turnover rate is approximately once every 22 years. If there is no increase in construction craft training, by the year 2010 the percentage of the construction work force having received some type of formal craft training will have dropped to 22%, with 78% of the craft work force having received only informal on-the-job training or, more likely, no training at all. Increasing construction craft training levels decreases employee turnover by 18%, increases productivity by an average of 18% and results in an average rate of return on the training investment of 2:1 (Liska, 1994). Completion of a formal craft training program also beneficially affects employee on-the-job safety by reducing accident frequency, which lowers contractors' workers compensation costs (Dedobbeleer, Champagne and German, 1990). Everything presented in this treatise supports increasing construction craft training efforts, and review of the relevant literature found no studies that suggested any drawbacks associated with craft training. Conclusions This analysis of construction craft training presented the general belief of industry observers that increasing the current levels of craft training would benefit the construction industry by

PAGE 94

82 1. Reducing industry-wide craft labor departures, 2. Increasing the quality of the constructed product, 3. Increasing the individual's productivity, 4. Reducing the contractor's worker's compensation costs, and 5. Increasing the craft worker's lifetime earning potential. To realize these expected benefits, the industry must develop increased contractor commitment, specifically from the nonunion sector of the industry, to support, promote and expand current levels of apprenticeship craft training (Rubens and Harrisson, 1980; Metcalf, 1985). The construction craft training simulation model confirmed the industry is training insufficient numbers of craft workers to meet the annual labor demand for skilled craft workers. If the industry were to increase its commitment to craft training and provide apprenticeship opportunities to workers at approximately 80% of the annual demand for skilled workers, a 200% increase in apprenticeship training levels would have to occur. It is difficult to understand why contractors in Florida are either unwilling or unable to increase apprenticeship training levels. There are virtually no barriers to implementing improved craft training programs. Florida Statute §239.117 exempts students enrolled in approved apprenticeship programs from the payment of tuition. This exemption means that there is no cost to the student for instruction if the apprenticeship committee contracts with a local public education committee or institution. The negotiated cost to the apprenticeship committee would, therefore, be reduced to the contributions of facilities, personnel, tools and training materials that must equal or exceed the total value of the fee exemptions.

PAGE 95

Training Provider Recommendations The follow-up survey instrument tested the initial survey respondents' attitudes toward the proposed recommendations in this section. In every case, the follow-up survey respondents supported the following recommendations. Secondary Education System The principal recommendation for the secondary school system is to implement construction-related school-to-work transition programs. Ideally, these programs would begin in the 7* through 1 0"^ grades with a career awareness program that would be coupled with both site and employer visits. The school system would then establish a "youth apprenticeship" partnership with local contractor organizations. In the 11* grade, students would spend 30% of their time receiving on-the-job construction craft training (typically during the summer months). By the 12"^ grade students would spend 50% of their time receiving on-the-job training (one semester of the school year), with the remaining 50% of their time spent on required academic instruction supplemented with craft-related instruction. Upon graduation students would be tested and receive a Standard Skill Certification if they passe the examination. Virtually every national contractor trade organization provides a skill development curriculum. There is no need for school districts to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to construction-related curricula. These existing training curricula can be modified to fit the needs of individual programs. At the time of this writing, there is also a push in Florida to establish schoolto-work transition programs in the form of tech prep and youth apprenticeship

PAGE 96

84 programs. Orange and Seminole counties in Florida (Orlando area) have established construction craft youth apprenticeship programs at the secondary school level. There is also a national belief that some form of school-to-work transition program is necessary at both the secondary and postsecondary level. Senate Bill 1993 S. 1396 will provide seed money to the states to facilitate youth apprenticeship demonstration projects. A focus of this legislation is to provide career awareness that will, hopefully, reduce the squandering of training funds and resources at the postsecondary level. Postsecondary Education System The postsecondary educational institutions that provide construction craft training programs, both job prep and apprenticeship, should develop stronger ties with local contractor organizations. This would benefit both parties. Strong contractor ties would allow the school to know if the provided training meets industry needs and would provide contractors with access to a better-trained work force. Each graduate of a vo-tech job prep training program should be required to complete a Standard Skill Certification examination. Only by the uniform testing of each graduate would program training effectiveness be determined. Apprenticeship Training System Apprenticeship training providers should contract with local postsecondary educational institutions, wherever practical, to provide the academic portion of

PAGE 97

85 apprenticeship training. This arrangement would allow the apprenticeship committee access to state funding. Each graduate of an apprenticeship training program should be required to complete a Standard Skill Certification examination. Only by the uniform testing of each apprentice would program training effectiveness be determined. Construction Craft Training Instructors The paramount problem with providing high-quality construction craft training is providing erudite, craft-orientated instructors. The minimum requirements for each craft training instructor should be completion of a formal craft apprenticeship program, a journeyman's license in the specific craft and a minimum of two years' experience at the journeyman level. The skills and abilities of the craft instructors are paramount to the effectiveness of the training program. To enhance the caliber of instruction, construction craft training instructors should be certified as instructors in the particular craft. Craft training instructors also should be required to complete six constructionand/or craft-related continuing education units every two years. State of Florida It is implausible to expect that the State of Florida could mandate Journeymanlevel craft worker licensing for all crafts. However, since the state is contributing significant resources in support of construction craft training, the state would be well advised to mandate craft worker skill certification for all job prep and apprenticeship

PAGE 98

86 training programs supported with public funds. Since the quality of instruction varies from program to program, this is the only feasible way to determine training program effectiveness. The vast majority of construction craft training programs are being taught in state-funded secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. Since the state is currently underwriting these craft training programs, the state also has the responsibility to supervise instructor competence. A primary method of guaranteeing instructor expertise is to legislatively mandate certification of craft training instructors. The State of Florida should provide tax incentives for construction contractors who establish and maintain registered craft apprenticeship training programs. Since apprenticeship committees already have the ability to contract with both secondary and postsecondary educational institutions to provide training, the tax incentives should encourage, and also be limited to, the deduction of any fees collected by the apprenticeship committee and the cost of materials and tooling donated to the training programs. The F-DOE currently has established enrollment ceilings (caps) for adult job preparatory vocational programs. These enrollment ceilings should be raised to at least 80% of the annual calculated demand for construction craft apprentices. The State of Florida has, as its primary interest, the goal of providing broadbased construction craft training. The funding levels in excess of $35 million armually and the cyclical nature of the industry dictate the need for broad-based training so individuals will have enough skills to be able to get a job on the next construction project. Narrowly based craft skills will not ensure continuing industry employment.

PAGE 99

Recommendations for Further Research 87 Craft Training Providers A longitudinal study should be undertaken to see how many of the individuals completing both vo-tech job prep and formal apprenticeship training programs continue working in the industry. This type of study could be conducted entirely in Tallahassee by using F-DOE's student records (the student's social security number) and BLMI's employer records (the employee's social security number). Longitudinal studies of this nature would require mainframe computer capability due to the size of the database searches. The benefits of this study would be to help determine training program effectiveness by identifying the number of individuals who have received formal craft training and have left the industry after completing their training. Those crafts with the highest dropout rates could be targeted for further research. The other area of further research on craft training providers would be to perform craft training simulation for each of the individual construction crafts. This would help to determine the appropriate training level for each of the individual crafts. Training Provider Funding Methods A secondary objective of this investigation was to develop a cost analysis of the construction craft training process. It became apparent during the research phase that the apportioimient allocated to the craft training programs was significantly less than the FTE funding levels. The final recommendation for further research would be to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the construction craft training program funding

PAGE 100

88 process to determine actual funding levels and verify where and how the money is actually being spent. Concluding Remarks Objective evidence was presented confirming that the current levels of construction craft training are shamefully short of the needs of Florida's construction industry. Without significant increases in craft training levels, serious shortages of skilled craft workers will occur, and these shortages will adversely affect the industry. The construction craft training simulation model presented in this investigation is a tool that can be used by craft training providers and policy setters to determine appropriate levels of construction craft training.

PAGE 101

APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION CRAFT TRAINING PROVIDER SURVEY This appendix is the summary of the survey instruments distributed to Florida's construction craft training providers. The first section is the summary of the initial survey instrument and the second section is the summary of the follow-up survey instrument. Summary of the initial survey instrument responses received from Florida's construction craft training providers The statistical analysis technique employed on the initial survey instrument responses was a nonparametric one-way analysis of variance, in this case the Wicoxon test. This technique assigns a rank to each response, then computes a x value that is designed to detect differences among the three groups of training providers—joint apprenticeship (union), nonjoint apprenticeship (nonunion) and vocational and technical education job preparation programs-while eliminating the influence of outliers on the computed x" value. The a = 0.05 decision criterion tests the null hypothesis that the population mean response ranks not significantly different. For values of Pr{x^}<0.05, there is a significant difference among the sample mean ranks; for values of Pr{x^}>0.05, there is no significant difference among the sample mean ranks. Since the entire population of verifiable construction craft training providers was identified and surveyed, statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data. Where appropriate, the symbol # was used to indicate the number of responses received from the training provider group— either joint apprenticeship program, nonjoint apprenticeship program, vo-tech job prep program or the total number of responses to the individual question. The symbol % was used to indicate the percentage of responses received from the training provider group. In some instances, the % column totals may add to greater than 1 00% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. 89

PAGE 102

90 Question #1: How is the training program administered? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs State-Wide Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total State wide number of training providers 58 100 39 100 64 100 161 100 Number of survey respondents 19 32 24 62 18 28 61 38 Number of surveys returned as undeliverable 3 5 5 13 8 5 Number of duplicate programs omitted from sample population 'i3 5 3 2 Number of Surveys returned after the cutoff date 2 3 2 1 The overall response rate to the survey instrument from all the verifiable construction craft training providers was 38%.

PAGE 103

91 Question #2: Where is tiie program presented? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Apprenticeship training facilitv 14 74 2 8 •V 16 26 Local community college 9 33 3 17 12 20 Contractor facilities 4 17 4 7 Vo-tech education center 4 21 12 50 15 83 31 51 Local High School 2 10 6 25 1 6 9 15 Other 1 4 1 2 Note: Column totals may add to more than 1 00% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more tiian one category. This question identified the type of facilities utilized by craft training providers, joint apprenticeship training providers relied primarily on private apprenticeship training facilities while nonjoint apprenticeship training providers relied primarily on public facilities for apprenticeship training. Question #3: How many hours per week are the students exposed to classroom training? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Classroom training hours (mean) 5.7 5.7 20.2 10.1 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the number of classroom hours the student is exposed to between the joint and nonjoint (x"=0.8575) programs. There is, however, a significant difference between the number of classroom hours the student is exposed to in the vo-tech programs and both the joint (x"=0.0001) and nonjoint (x^=0.0001) programs. This revelation is not surprising since these vo-tech programs are, primarily, academically orientated.

PAGE 104

92 Question #4: How many hours per week are the students exposed to supervised on-the-job training? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Supervised on-thejob training hours (mean) 40.0 36.4 11.1 29.8 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is a significant difference in the number of supervised on-the-job training hours the student is exposed to between the joint and nonjoint (x"=0.0289) programs. There is also a significant difference in the number of supervised on-the-job training hours the student is exposed to between the vo-tech programs and both the joint (x^=0.0001) and nonjoint (x^=0.0001) programs. This difference in supervised on-the-job training hours between the vo-tech and both the joint and nonjoint programs is not surprising since these vo-tech programs are primarily academically orientated. The difference in supervised on-the-job training hours between joint and nonjoint programs is an unexpected revelation and can be attributed to the prohibition in the joint programs of apprentices working unsupervised while nonjoint programs do allow apprentices to work unsupervised. Question #5: Who teaches the related course instruction in these programs? (check all that apply) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Journeymen 18 95 16 67 34 56 Contractors 3 17 11 16 14 23 Manufacturers &/or Suppliers 3 13 3 5 Educators 2 11 7 29 9 15 Local Building Inspectors 5 21 5 8 Others 3|S 3 13 3 5 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category.

PAGE 105

The responses to this question suggest that joint apprenticeship training programs rely heavily upon journeyman craft workers and that nonjoint apprenticeship training programs utilize a broader base of industry professionals to provide craft instruction. Question #6: Who supervises the apprentice's on-the-job instruction? (check all that apply) 1 Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Journeymen 19 100 19 79 3 17 41 67 Contractors 5 26 15 62 7 39 27 44 Apprentice Instructors 3 16 4 17 2 11 9 15 Educators 1 5 1 4 9 50 11 18 Local Building Inspectors * Others 1 5 4 17 1 6 6 10 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose to more than one category. The responses to this question suggest that both journeyman craft workers and contractors share the primary responsibility for supervising the apprentice's on-the-job training in the formal apprenticeship programs while educators shoulder this responsibility in the vo-tech programs.

PAGE 106

94 Question #7: What are the required instructor qualifications? (check all that apply) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Journeyman's License in the particular trade 12 63 12 50 2 11 26 43 Completion of an apprenticeship program & 2 years experience 10 53 7 29 2 11 19 31 Craft experience not at the Journeyman level :^ 3|: 3 17 3 5 2 year college degree 1 4 5 28 6 10 4 year college degree 5 28 5 8 Teaching certification 18 95 16 67 15 83 49 80 Other 8 42 13 54 7 39 28 46 Note: Column totals may add to more than 1 00% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. In the "Other" category, craft experience in excess of 6 years and committee approval were cited by the joint and nonjoint programs and meeting the Department of Education guidelines and licensed contractor were cited by the vo-tech programs. This question reveals that journeyman licensing, completion of a formal apprenticeship, and teaching certification are the most prevalent requirements for apprentice instructors. It should be noted that "teaching certification" means different things to each of these groups. For the joint and nonjoint programs teaching certification is, typically, the completion of an instructor training program offered by a national trade organization, while for the vo-tech programs teaching certification means meeting the Department of Education guidelines.

PAGE 107

95 Question #8: Who provides your instructor continuing vocational education/training programs? (check all that apply) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total AFL-CIO 17 89 1 6 18 30 ABC 4 17 4 7 Manufacturers &/or suppliers 3 16 9 38 10 56 22 36 AGC 1 5 2 8 1 6 4 7 NAHB 2 8 2 3 None 6 8 2 11 8 13 Others 2 11 10 42 12 67 24 39 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. In the "Other" category, national trade organizations and the Florida university system were cited by all the programs. Question #9: How often does this program require the instructor's participation in continuing education programs? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Every year 11 58 4 17 5 28 20 33 Every 2 years >\<: 1 4 * 1 2 Every 3 years 1 4 1 6 2 3 Every 4 years * None 5 26 11 46 2 11 18 30 Other 3 16 3 13 10 56 16 26 Note: Column totals may add to more tlian 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category.

PAGE 108

96 In the "Other" category, meeling the Department of Education continuing education requirements and "recommended but not required" were cited by the programs. The responses to this question indicate that joint programs require apprentice instructor participation in continuing education more frequently than either the nonjoint or the vo-tech programs. Question #10: Should craft training instructors be certified as instructors in the particular craft? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Strongly Agree 16 84 22 92 13 72 51 84 Moderately Agree 1 5 1 6 2 3 Moderately Disagree 1 6 1 2 Strongly Disagree 5l 1 4 1 6 2 3 These craft training providers strongly believe that certification of instructors should be required. Question #11: What is the maximum yearly training capacity of this program? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Maximum yearly training capacity (mean) 25.4 22.9 16.2 24.0 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the maximum yearly training capacity of the various programs (x'=0.3254). The res|5onscs to this question indicate that a class size of 20 to 25 students is typical for the existing training infrastructure.

PAGE 109

97 Question #12: What qualifications must the students have to participate? (check all thai apply) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total M It % of Total Minimum 16 years of age 1 5 7 29 8 13 High School diploma or pni]i\/f)lpnt 16 84 16 67 * 32 53 Minimum score on aptitude tests 12 63 12 50 24 39 High School algebra 4 21 2 8 6 10 Prior trade experience 2 8 2 3 Other 13 68 10 42 23 38 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. The "Other" category of this question included a minimum of 18 years of age for both the joint and nonjoint programs, often citing workman's compensation law requirements. It should be noted that compliance with Florida's child labor laws is also a hinderance when admitting youths younger than 18 into apprenticeship programs.

PAGE 110

Question #13: How are the students identified and selected for these programs? (check all that apply) Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Local advertisements 18 95 17 79 35 57 Contractor recommendations 16 84 23 96 •V 39 64 Other student recommendations 16 84 12 50 28 46 Military Transition Service Centers 5 26 4 17 9 15 High School recruiting program 14 74 14 58 28 46 Other 5 26 7 29 12 20 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more tlian one category. The "Other" category of this question included the Florida Job Service for both joint and nonjoint Programs. The responses to this question indicate that Military Transition Service Centers are tlie least utiHzed resource for attracting new recruits to apprenticeship programs. Question #14: Wliat is the estimated program completion (graduation) rate? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Program completion rate (mean) 63.6% 51.1% 52.9% 54.4% The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the program completion (graduation) rates between the various programs (x'=0.2678). A statistical analysis of the completion rates, by craft, was also performed and found no significant differences between the craft completion rates (x'=0.7020). The responses to this question indicate that

PAGE 111

1 99 approximately 4 of every 10 new apprentices who enter the industry drop out of the training programs prior to completing the training program. Question #15: When does the highest rate of student dropout occur? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Student dropout timing (mean # of months) 7.7 9.3 7.3 8.3 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the dropout rate between the various programs (x^=0.1385). The responses to this question indicate that most students drop out of the training programs within the first year. This suggests a lack of understanding of the realities of the construction industry by individuals entering apprenticeship programs. Question #16: Do you feel a one-year preapprenticeship program would help reduce the dropout rate? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Strongly agree 4 21 11 46 2 11 17 28 Moderately agree 8 42 9 38 10 56 27 44 Moderately disagree 4 21 2 8 4 22 10 16 Strongly disagree 3 16 2 8 2 11 7 12 The responses to this question indicate there is a belief that some form of industry awareness program, prc-apprenticcship in this instance, would help reduce the training dropout rate.

PAGE 112

1 100 Question #17: What is the approximate square footage devoted to construction craft training? 1. Classroom instruction. 2. Shop instruction. 3. Administrative functions. Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Classroom instruction (mean) 4,456 1,230 1,610 3,040 Shop instruction (mean) 6,302 2,634 7,030 5,120 Administrative functions (mean) 883 1,037 515 860 The responses to this question indicate the mean size of training facilities currently utilized to provide construction craft training. Question #18: Are the classroom faciHties adequate? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 15 79 10 42 10 56 35 57 Moderately adequate 4 21 12 50 5 28 21 34 Moderately inadequate 1 4 3 17 4 7 Completely inadequate * The responses to this question indicates the current classroom facilities utilized for construction craft training are considered adequate for the existing training levels.

PAGE 113

1 101 Question #19: Are the shop facilities adequate? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 14 74 7 29 8 44 29 48 Moderately adequate 4 21 13 54 5 28 22 36 Moderately inadequate 1 5 3 13 5 28 9 15 Completely inadequate 1 4 1 2 The responses to this question indicates the current shop facilities utilized for construction craft training are considered adequate for the existing training levels. Question #20: Are the administrative facilities adequate? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 17 90 15 63 10 56 42 69 Moderately adequate 2 11 7 29 4 22 13 21 Moderately inadequate 1 4 2 11 3 5 Completely inadequate ,1, 1 6 1 2 The responses to this question indicates the current administrative facilities utilized for construction craft training are considered adequate for the existing training levels.

PAGE 114

102 Question #21 The data on the following three pages were developed through research at the Florida Departments of Labor and Education, not from responses to the survey instrument. The enrollment information on the next page is the number of apprentices enrolled in both joint and nonjoint registered apprenticeship programs as of December 1992 and the number of students enrolled in vo-tech job preparation programs as of the fiscal year 91-92 reporting period. The information on the following pages show the average level of apprentice completions for each of the identified crafts, the projected annual number of craft openings and the percentage of craft openings currently being filled by apprenticeship completers. The projected number of craft openings information was developed by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information, and published in the Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections 1990 2005, October 1992 issue.

PAGE 115

1 103 What is the current student enroUment in each training program offered? 1. Boilermaker 11. Painter 0 Joint 60 Joint 0 Nonjoint 6 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 0 Vo-tech 0 Total 66 Total 2. Brick Mason & Stone Mason 12. Plasterer, Lather & Drywall Fi 38 Joint 7 Joint 5 Nonjoint 0 Nonjoint 214 Vo-tech 21 Vo-tech 257 Total 28 Total 3. Carpenter 13. Plumber 259 Joint 209 Joint 31 Nonjoint 238 Nonjoint 594 Vo-tech 311 Vo-tech 884 Total 758 Total 4. Cement & Terrazzo Finisher 14. Pipe Fitter 0 Joint 189 Joint 0 Nonjoint 2 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 0 Vo-tech 0 Total 191 Total 5. Electrician 15. Sprinkler Fitter 474 Joint 41 Joint 933 Nonjoint 106 Nonjoint 837 Vo-tech 7 Vo-tech 2,244 Total 1 54 Total 6. Elevator Constructor 16. Roofer 0 Joint 50 Joint 8 Nonjoint 0 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 0 Vo-tech 8 Total 50 Total 7. Equipment Operator 17. Sheet Metal Worker 17 Joint 186 Joint 0 Nonjoint 1 1 0 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 13 Vo-tech 17 Total 309 Total 8. Insulator 18. Refrigeration Mechanic 67 Joint 14 Joint 0 Nonjoint 201 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 3059 Vo-tech 67 Total 3,274 Total 9. Ironworker 19. Tile Setter & Marble Finisher 140 Joint 6 Joint 0 Nonjoint 29 Nonjoint 3 Vo-tech 31 Vo-tech 143 Total 66 Total 10. Millwright 20. Other (Glazier) 33 Joint 2 Joint 0 Nonjoint 2 Nonjoint 0 Vo-tech 1 Vo-tech 33 Total 5 Total

PAGE 116

104 Craft Training Sponsor Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs, btate-vvioe Total Annual Average Number of Apprentice oompieuons Projected Annual Number of Craft Percent of Annual Craft Openings Filled Electrician Nonjoint Joint Total 21 32 233 95 328 Growth 664 Depart. 648 Total 1,312 25% Plumber Nonjoint Joint Total 16 9 25 60 42 102 Growth 481 Depart. 478 Total 959 19% Pipe Fitter Nonjoint Joint Total 3 10 13 1 38 39 w /Plumber w/Plumber Sprinkler Fitter Nonjoint Joint Total 6 7 35 8 43 w/Plumber w/Plumber Carpenter Nonjoint Joint Total 10 6 16 8 65 73 Growth 975 Depart. 1,068 Total 2,043 4% Millwright Nonjoint Joint Total 0 5 5 0 _8 8 Growth 22 Depart. 37 Total 59 14% Flooring Installer Nonjoint Joint Total 0 0 0 0 _0 0 Growth 45 Depart. 43 Total 88 0% Drywall Finisher Nonjoint Joint Total 1 2 0 2 2 Growth 103 Depart. 154 Total 257 1% Lather Nonjoint Joint Total 0 1 1 0 _0 0 Growth 8 Depart. 13 Total 21 0% Plasterer Nonjoint Joint Total 1 2 3 0 _0 0 Growth 38 Depart. 102 Total 140 0% Refrigeration Mechanic &/or HVAC Installer Nonjoint Joint Total 11 2 13 67 _4 71 Growth 371 Depart. 236 Total 607 12% Sheet Metal Duct Installer Nonjoint Joint Total 11 4 15 26 47 73 Growth 41 Depart. 49 Total 90 81% Painter Nonjoint Joint Total 2 4 6 2 20 22 Growth 645 Depart. 569 Total 1,214 2%

PAGE 117

105 Craft Training Sponsor Registered Apprenticeship Training Programs, btate Wide Total Annual Average # of Apprentice uompieiions Projected Annual Number of Craft v^peninyb Percent of Annual Craft Openings Filled by Ironworker Nonjoint Joint Total 1 6 7 0 47 47 Growth 70 Depart. 105 Total 175 27% Roofer Nonjoint Joint Total 0 2 2 0 17 17 Growtti 207 Depart. 142 Total 349 5% Equipnnent Operator Nonjoint Joint Total 1 5 6 0 J 6 Growtti 98 Depart. 96 Total 194 3% Tile Setter Nonjoint Joint Total 1 2 3 10 2 12 Growtti 29 Depart. 48 Total 77 16% Glazier Nonjoint Joint Total 2 2 4 1 _\_ 2 Growtti 63 Depart. 76 Total 139 1 /o Asbestos Worker/ Insulator Nonjoint Joint Total 1 3 4 0 17 17 Growtti 45 Depart. 152 Total 197 y /o Elevator Constructor Nonjoint Joint Total 1 0 1 2 _0 2 Growtti 8 Depart. 13 Total 21 10% Stone Mason Nonjoint Joint Total 0 3 3 0 _0 0 Growtti 5 Depart. 9 Total 14 0% Brick Mason Nonjoint Joint Total 2 3 5 2 13 15 Growtti 96 Depart. 147 Total 243 D /o Concrete & Terrazzo Finisher Nonjoint Joint Total 1 1 2 0 0 0 Growtti 126 Depart. 336 Total 462 no/ U /o Boilermaker Nonjoint Joint Total 0 0 0 0 _0 0 Growtti 6 Depart. 1_1_ Total 17 0% Other Trades Growtti 239 Depart. 138 Total 377 Totals Nonjoint Joint Total 92 83 175 447 432 879 Growth 4,385 Depart. 4,670 Total 9,055 10%

PAGE 118

106 The data presented on the previous three pages indicate that for virtually every craft within the industry, the current level of craft apprenticeship training and vo-tech job prep training in Florida is clearly insufficient to meet the manpower needs of the Florida construction industry. Industry wide, the average level of apprenticeship completions is 879 completions per year while the industry separations average 4,670 per year. Question #22: Does this training program have a permanent or part-time office and administrative staft? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Permanent 19 100 14 58 14 78 47 77 Part-time 1 5 10 42 3 17 14 23 Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. The responses to this question indicates that most training programs have a permanent administrative staff Question #23: Please identify the number of staff personnel. Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Administrative (mean) 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 Technical and/or instructors (mean) 4.6 8.8 4.4 6.1 Secretarial (mean) 1.1 1.0 2.9 1.5 Other (mean) 3.5 1.4 1.0 3 The responses to this question indicates the mean size of the training program staff.

PAGE 119

107 Question #24 Please identify the number of staff personnel who report to 1. The apprenticeship committee. Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship r lOgrams Vo-tech Job Preparation D r/~\n ra mo r 1 Uy lal 1 lo Traininq Provider IVlcdi 1 Administrative (mean) 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 Technical and/or instructors (mean) 4.9 7.9 8 7.0 Secretarial (mean) 1.0 0.9 0 0.9 Other (mean) 0 2.6 4.5 2.7 The responses to this question indicates the mean size of the training program staff who report to the apprenticeship committee. 2. The local education agency. Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Administrative (mean) 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 Technical and/or instructors (mean) 4.3 6.6 5.4 5.5 Secretarial (mean) 0 0.9 1.5 1.1 Other (mean) 0 1.3 8 2.4 The responses to this question indicates the mean size of the training program staff who report to the local education agency.

PAGE 120

108 Question #25: Does this program receive grant funding from Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Industry Monetary Grants 1 5 1 4 2 3 Industry Equipment Grants 5,'t 1 4 1 6 2 3 Public Education Funding 9 47 9 37 18 42 Federal Education Funding 9 50 9 50 Employer Assessments 10 53 6 25 1 6 17 28 JTPA Funds 1 5 2 8 8 44 11 18 Other sit 'It Note: Column totals may add to more than 100% since the respondents had the opportunity to choose more than one category. The responses to this question indicates the major sources of funding for these training programs are employers and both the state and federal governments. Question #26: Please identify the funding agency, the funding amount and the funding duration. The response to this question was insufficient to draw any conclusions. Question #27: Please identify any specillc funding criteria. The response to this question was insufficient to draw any conclusions.

PAGE 121

109 Question #28: What is the approximate yearly budget for this training program? The response to this question was insufficient to draw any conclusions; however, the few complete responses that were received suggested a yearly training budget of approximately $1700 per student. Question #29: What is the annual cost to the student? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Student Cost (mean) $67.86 $66.42 $505.07 $219.91 The statistical analyses of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the cost to the student between the joint and nonjoint (x^=0.8896) programs and there is a significant difference in the cost to the student between the vo-tech programs and the joint (x"=0.0001) and nonjoint (x^=0.0002) programs. The responses to this question indicate the cost to the student is higher in the vo-tech programs than in the joint or nonjoint programs. The annual cost to the student in both the joint and nonjoint programs was typically identified as the costs for text books. Question #30: What is the annual cost, per student, to the contractor? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Contractor cost (mean) $/hour assessment $313.68 $301.67 $312.05 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the cost per student to the contractor between the nonjoint and the vo-tech programs (x"=0.9999). The contractor cost for the joint programs is directly dependent upon the cratt hours worked and is, therefore, variable from year to year and from contractor to contractor.

PAGE 122

110 Question #31: What is the annual cost per student, if any, to the public education finance committee? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Public education finance committee cost (mean) $3176.57 $3912.00 $3884.42 $3788.70 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the cost to the public education finance committee among the various programs (x"=0.1 159). Is should be noted that 7 of the 19 joint programs (37%) and 20 of the 24 nonjoint programs (83%) report receiving public funding. Question #32: What is this program's estimated expenditure to educate each student per year? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Training Provider Mean Program annual expenditure (mean) $2381.21 $992.92 $3072.00 $1990.13 The statistical analysis of variance of the responses to this question indicates there is no significant difference in the program expenditures between the joint and votech (x^=0.0904) programs, but there is a significant difference in the program expenditures between the nonjoint and the joint (x"=0.0236) and vo-tech (x^=0.0316) programs. The responses to this question indicate the nonjoint programs devote fewer monetary resources to craft training than do the other programs.

PAGE 123

Ill Question #33: Is the construction industry providing enough craft training? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 4 21 2 8 1 6 7 11 Moderately adequate 8 42 7 29 5 28 20 33 Moderately inadequate 2 11 6 25 6 33 14 23 Completely inadequate 4 21 9 38 4 22 17 28 The responses to this question indicate the joint apprenticeship training providers feel the construction industry is providing adequate levels of training while the nonjoint and vo-tech programs feel the industry is providing inadequate levels of training. Question #34: Docs the location of your training program meet the student needs? Joint Apprenticeship Programs Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs Question Totals # % # % # % Total # % of Total Fully adequate 14 74 11 46 11 61 36 59 Moderately adequate 4 21 13 54 7 39 24 39 Moderately inadequate Completely inadequate 5! The responses to this question indicates the current location of the facilities are adequate to meet the needs of the students.

PAGE 124

112 Question #35: As a construction craft training provider, what is your primary need? The following quoted responses from the survey instrument were typical. "A much better quality of applicant, especially those seeking a career who have just graduated. The public school system is producing graduates that have very poor basic skills making it necessary for us to spend too much time remediating that applicant, using up valuable training time." "Public recognition of the value of an adequate supply of highly trained craftsmen and the recognition that support of craft training is in the public's interest." "Our primary need is for the academic i'aculty, advisors [and] administrators of the public schools to realize the need for quality vocational programs and career counseling in the high schools. The construction industry has historically been the "dumping grounds" for the students who are not considered to be college oriented. Today's technology demands workers who are prepared well in Math, English and the work ethics necessary to succeed in this demanding industry." "To educate the industry why there is a need for this training." Question #36: What are the biggest problems associated with providing construction craft training? The following quoted responses from the survey instrument were typical. "[The] on again off again [nature ofj employment due to finishing one job and the start of another. The ongoing safety problems that are associated with the construction industry." "High School graduates that can neither read or write. Training people with these problems is almost impossible because they can't comprehend the training materials." "... companies have become increasingly specialized. There are few construction companies (general contractors) who hire their own crews. Work is usually "subbed out", so it is diftlcult to get well-rounded training in some crafts, such as carpentry which is now very specialized. Additionally workers in hard construction jobs are not overly interested in going to school in the evenings after putting in a hot, physical day."

PAGE 125

113 "Many of the students lack the basic knowledge in Math and English. We spend extra hours to upgrade their math skills to an adequate level." Question #37: What is your recommended solution to solving these training problems The following quoted responses from the survey instrument were typical. "Reaching students at a younger age level, high school is to late." "Work with employers to ensure good training is done. Make them more a part of the training system." "Allow more high schools to be tech prep orientated to allow career paths towards the construction industry." "The construction industry has a very bad reputation. The industry must change the perception that the profit motive is the bottom line and that the craft workers are expendable." "More emphasis on career choices needs to be provided in the junior high and high schools. Vocational education programs should be promoted in a positive way by professional educators. High school pre-apprenticeship programs could be developed." Question #38: Do you have any further comments you would like to share? The following quoted responses from the survey instrument were typical. "In the last ten years the quality of the construction work force has been alarmingly diminished. [Hurricane] "Andrew" is proof positive of the economic impact of faulty construction performed by incompetent workers. The cost of permitting a decline in training is to be borne by the citizens through higher insurance rates." "Apprenticeship has proven to be a very effective means of developing a strong work force. It should be promoted strongly by the educational community and the government as a good alternative to a college education." "Craft training has suffered a decline over the past couple of decades because of the emphasis on a college education as the only way to succeed in life.... As a result, many of those gravitating to the trades are not second, third or fourth

PAGE 126

114 generation craftsmen as in tlie past, but those who were unable to "cut the mustard" in other career ventures." "We are happy to correspond with any educational institutions who are improving the construction training in Florida. Please notify us if there is any way that we can help." Summary of the construction industry training provider follow-up survey Each of the respondents to the initial survey instrument were given the opportunity to request a summary copy of the survey instrument results. Sixty of the training providers requested a summary copy of the results. The researcher included an additional survey instrument designed to test the training provider's opinions concerning the following proposed recommendations. It should be noted that statistically valid conclusions concerning the opinions of the entire training provider population cannot be drawn from the results of this follow-up survey. Should "career awareness" programs be initiated in Florida's middle schools? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 23 85 4 15 0 0 0 0 Should "school-to-work" transition and/or "youth apprenticeship" programs be introduced in Florida's high schools? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 1 4 2 7 Should postsecondary construction craft training providers develop stronger contractor ties? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 20 74 4 15 2 7 1 4

PAGE 127

115 Should apprenticeship training providers contract with postsecondary institutions, to provide the academic related training, where ever practical. Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 15 56 9 33 1 4 2 7 Should "standard skill certification" be required of all apprenticeship graduates? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 20 74 5 19 2 7 0 0 Should "standard skill certification" be required of all vo-tech job prep graduates? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 18 67 9 33 0 0 0 0 Should construction craft instructors be required to complete 6 construction and/or craft related continuing education units every 2 years? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 10 37 10 37 5 19 2 7 Should the State of Florida provide tax incentives to contractors who establish and maintain registered apprenticeship training programs? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 18 67 7 36 0 0 2 7

PAGE 128

116 Should the State of Florida mandate journeyman certification in all crafts? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 16 59 9 33 1 4 1 4 Should the State of Florida mandate craft journeyman levels on all job sites? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 12 45 10 37 3 11 2 7 Should local governmental agencies mandate crait journeyman levels on all job sites? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 11 41 10 37 3 11 3 11 Should the State of Florida mandate craft apprentice levels on state funded construction projects? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 14 51 8 31 2 7 3 11 The current number of apprenticeship graduates presently fills approximately 10% of the construction industry's annual need for craft workers. Should the State of Florida attempt to increase the annual number of apprenticeship graduates from the current level of 879 per year to 2,700 per year within 5 years? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 14 51 7 26 1 4 5 19

PAGE 129

117 The State of Florida is currently providing approximately $20 million per year to fund construction craft apprenticeship training, approximately $5,100 per enrolled apprentice per year. Should the Department of Education make additional funds available to increase the number of apprenticeship graduates? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree # % # % # % # % 17 62 4 15 1 4 5 19 The responses to the follow-up survey indicate a strong to moderate agreement from the training providers to each of the proposed recommendations.

PAGE 130

APPENDIX B CRAFT TRAINING MODEL SIMULATION RESULTS This appendix includes the construction craft training model simulation results. A graphical representation of the model is included for simplicity. Graphical representations of the equations and the labor pool results follow. The numerical printouts for each of the equations is included. Finally a narrative description of each of the initial labor pool values, and the development process for each of the individual rate equations that were used in the program 118

PAGE 131

119 1 Q. O O O U._l Q. .4 1 c .0 o £ i > -5 tL 1 a !c M O (/) oint enti ram c a O) 0 a 0 Z < Q. I 1 1 J (A E (0 11/ ^ (0 Mora P (0 ffl I I o s •a & G O o 3 is C/3 C! O U op

PAGE 132

120 Helper, Vo-tech, Nonjoint & Joint Rate Equations This graph shows the annual demand for unskilled workers entering the industry. The premise of this simulation is to determine what will happen to the work force if there are no increases in construction craft training levels. Rate equation Rl shows all the industry growth going through the Helper route of no formal craft training. Rate equations R2 (vo-tech job prep), R3 (nonjoint apprenticeship) and R4 (joint apprenticeship) are held flat for the simulation duration. Table C-1 Graphic representation of the helper, vo-tech, nonjoint and joint rate equation calculations from 1990 to 2005 Rl-l R2~2 R3-3 R4-4 7000 0 0 1990. 1995 Y E A R 2000, 8000. 1000. 200. 9000 2000 400 10.e3 3000 SOD 2005 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 14 3 1 3 ------41 3 11. e3 1 4000. 2 800. 34 2

PAGE 133

Vo-tech Graduation and Apprenticeship Completion Rate Equations 121 This graph shows that vo-tech job prep graduations (R5), nonjoint apprenticeship completions (R6) and joint apprenticeship completions (R7) are held flat during the 15 year calculation period. Table C-2 Graphic representation of the vo-tech graduation and apprenticeship completion rate equations from 1 990 to 2005 R5~l R6-2 R7-3 0 0 1990.500 200 1995. Y E A R 2000 1000 400 I 12 I 12 I 12 i 12 I 12 I 12 I 12 2005 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 121500 600 2000. 1 800. 23 13 I 13 I 13 I 13 1 12 1 1 12 i 1 12 i 1 12 1 1 12 1 1 12 1 12 1 1 12 1 1 12 1 i 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

PAGE 134

122 Skilled Labor Requirement Rate Equations This graph shows the increasing, annual, demand for skilled labor during the calculation period. The annual demand for journeyman level craft workers (R8) steadily and uniformly increases from 4,870 individuals in 1990, to 6,315 individuals in 2005. The annual demand for foremen level craft workers (R9) steadily and uniformly increases from 1560 individuals in 1990, to 2007 individuals in 2005. Table C-3 Graphic representation of the skilled labor requirement rate equations from 1990 to 2005 R8~l R9-2 4500 1400 1990 5000. 1600. 5500 1800 6000 2000 6500. 1 2200. 2 12 12 1995. Y E A R 2000 1 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 12 12 12 2 1 I 2 1 I 2 1| 2 1 2 |1 2| 1 2 1 |2 1 I 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2005 2 1

PAGE 135

123 Projected Labor Demand Rate Equations This is another graph showing the increasing demand for skilled labor (foremen {R9} and journeymen {R8}) and unskilled labor (helpers {RIO}) during the 15 year calculation period. This graph is presented to show that the model has uniform and steady growth in the demand for construction craft labor. This graph was utilized to detect for inaccurate equations in the model. Table C-4 Graphic representation of the projected labor demand rate equations from 1990 to 2005 R8~l R9-2 RlO-3 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 1 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2 70. e3 80. e3 90 .e3 100 e3 110. e3 3 1990 12 12 13 13 13 31 12 31 12 31 12 21 23 2 1 23 2 1 23 2 1 23 1995 Y E A R 2000 32 1 32 1 32 1 32 1 32 I 1 321 2 I 2 2005.------1 1 1 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

PAGE 136

124 Projected Construction Project Labor Rate Equations This graph shows the projected demand for construction craft labor from each of the primary labor pools: Informal on-tiie-job training (Rl 1), nonjoint apprenticeship programs (R12), joint apprenticeship programs (R13), journeymen labor pool (R14) and foremen labor pool (R15). This graph was utilized to verify that the construction craft labor requirement equations exhibited either a uniform and steady growth, or the forced flatness, in each of the previously identified labor pools. Table C-5 Graphic representation of the projected construction project labor rate equations from 1990 to 2005 Rll-l R12~2 R13-3 R14-4 R15-5 60 .63 0 110 .63 40 .63 1990 .4 70 .83 500 120 .63 45 .63 80 .63 1000 130 .63 50 .63 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 45 45 1995 -54 54 54 54 5 4 5 4 2000.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 12 1 21 2 : 2 2 4 2 42 5 24 5 2 4 52 2 9 1 14 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 L 3 13 1 31 3 1 3 3 0 .63 500 0 .63 5 .63 100.63 1 2000. 23 150.63 4 60.63 5 45 45 45 12 13 34.25

PAGE 137

125 Projected Construction Industry Labor Departure Rate Equations This graph shows the projected construction craft labor departures from each of the primary labor pools: helper labor pool (R21), vo-tech job prep programs (R22) nonjoint apprenticeship programs (R23), joint apprenticeship programs (R24), journeymen labor pool (R25) and foremen labor pool (R26). This graph was utilized to verify that the projected craft labor departure equations exhibited either a uniform and steady growth, or the forced flatness, in each of the previously identified labor pools. Table C-6 Graphic representation of the projected construction industry labor departure rate equations from 1990 to 2005 R21-1 R22~2 R23~3 R24-4 R25-5 R2e~6 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 2 0 100 200 300 400 3 0 50 100 150 200 4 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 5 800 900 1000 1100 1200 6 1 5 3 2 4 16 1 5 3 2 4 16 61 5 3 4 1 5 3 2 4 16 61 5 3 2 4 61 5 3 2 4 6 1 5 3 2 4 6 1 5 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 1995 ----6 3 2 6 1 5 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 6 15 3 2 4 6 1 53 2 4 6 1 35 2 4 e 13 5 2 4 2000 -61 5 2 4 13 6 3 1 5 2 4 6 3 1 5 2 4 6 3 1 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 4 25 63 12 5 > 4 36 1 54 12 3 6 2 1 45 3. 6 2 1 5 14 3 6 2 41 5 2005 3 6 2 4 -1-5-

PAGE 138

126 Florida Construction Craft Labor Model Simulation. Calculated Equation Values The figures on the following three pages are the numerical values for each of the rate or level equations at the end of the calculation period. These figures are utilized to verify the expected growth pattern and to allow the researcher to quantify the areas of interest. This table was the primary tool for calculating the expected demand for skilled craft workers during the calculation period. Table C-7 Calculated equation values for the Florida construction craft labor model simulation from 1990 to 2005 1 Q Q n y y u 1 Q Q 1 1 Q Q 9 X _7 J7 1993 1994 1995 Kl 1 1 o A 1 / O / rt Z R n 1 R n O U X O J8163 7 8311 8460 R2 yi n n c 4UUD Anne; *i U U J d n n R *i U U J 4005 4005 4005 R3 cue Ti bob. / J ODD. / J ^ 7 ^ D O J / J D O D / O 665 73 665 73 SA ir n Q T Q C P Q 1 Q c o q no 589 18 589 18 589.18 T n Q n o 1 n Q n 0 J. u y u z 1 n Q n 9 X U J U 1090 2 1090 2 1090.2 Rd 44 / U / AA^ ("17 4 4 7 0 7 447 07 447.07 R7 4 ii y /ITT Q 4 J y 4 J X y 4 "3 1 Q 1 .J X Z7 1 J X • ^ R8 4870.6 4 y b U ^ IT n cr ri n O U D U Z 1 4 1 9 3 X^ X z R9 77 7 m9fi S R9 1559 2 1586 7 lb 14 b T C 4 9 Q X D 4 Z O X o 1 J. J 1 7nn 1 X / U U X RIO 77 4e3 78 81e3 8 0 2 5e3 0*3 T Qci 7 o J yej Rll 72 2e3 73 52e3 74 86e3 lb z le J •7 7 C 7 T / o y D60 R12 1170 3 1170.3 1170 3 J \j 6 T 1 7 n T XX /U.J 1 1 7 n "3 X X / U .3 R13 1359 8 1359 8 1359.8 13 59.8 1359 8 T "3 C Q O 1 Joy o R14 110 Ie3 112 .e3 114 e3 116 .e3 118 .63 120 .63 R15 41 13e3 41.86e3 42 61e3 43 37e3 44 14e3 44 9363 R16 72 .2e3 73 52e3 74 86e3 76 21e3 77 57e3 78 9563 R17 1170.3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 R18 1359 8 1359 8 1359 8 1359 8 1359.8 1359.8 R19 110 Ie3 112 .e3 114 e3 116 e3 118 .63 120.63 R20 41 13e3 41 86e3 42 61e3 43 37e3 44 1463 44 93e3 R21 1106 9 1127 2 1147 8 1168 6 1189 7 1211 R22 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914.8 R23 218 .67 218.67 218 .67 218 67 218 67 218.67 R24 157.28 157 .28 157 .28 157 .28 157 .28 157.28 R25 2185 1 2223 7 2262 8 2302 3 2342.2 2382.6 R26 813 .69 828 22 843 858 03 873 .32 888 86 FLAP 1500. e3 1487 e3 1474 e3 1460 .e3 1447 63 1433 .63 HLAP 78 5e3 79 94e3 81.4e3 82 88e3 84 .3863 85 8963 VTJP 8010 8010 8010 8010 8010 8010 NJAP 1836 1836 1836 1836 1836 1836. JAPP 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949. lOJT 77 07e3 78 .48e3 79 91e3 81 35e3 82 8163 84 .2863 JMLP 113 8e3 115 8e3 117 9e3 119 9e3 122 .63 124 163 FMLP 41 94e3 42 .69e3 43 .45e3 44 23e3 45 0263 45 8263 I LDP 0 7414 8 14 9e3 22 .47e3 30 1163 37 8263 CPLP 309. 4e3 309. 4e3 309 4e3 309 .4e3 309.463 309.463 CPLR 225 9e3 229 9e3 234 e3 238 Ie3 242 2e3 246 .4e3 YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

PAGE 139

127 Table C-7~continued YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Rl 8610 7 8763 1 8917.4 9073 4 9231 2 9390.8 R2 4005 4005 4005 4005 4005 4005 R3 665 73 665 73 665.73 665 73 665.73 665.73 R4 589 18 589 18 589.18 589.18 589.18 589.18 R5 1090 .2 1090 2 1090.2 1090.2 1090.2 1090.2 R6 447.07 447 07 447 07 447.07 447.07 447.07 R7 431 9 431 9 431.9 431.9 431.9 431 9 R8 5420 8 5516 1 5612 5 5710 1 5808.8 5908 6 R9 1729 3 1758 8 1788.6 1818.8 1849 3 1880 2 RIO 86 19e3 87 71e3 89 25e3 90 82e3 92 4e3 93 99e3 Rll 80 35e3 81 76e3 83 19e3 84 64e3 86 Ie3 87 58e3 R12 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 R13 1359 8 1359 8 1359.8 1359 8 1359 8 1359 8 R14 122 Ie3 124 2e3 126 3e3 128 4e3 130 5e3 132 7e3 R15 45 73e3 46 54e3 47 36e3 48 2e3 49 05e3 49 92e3 R16 80.35e3 81 76e3 83 19e3 84 64e3 86 Ie3 87 58e3 R17 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 1170 3 R18 1359 8 1359 8 1359 8 1359.8 1359.8 1359 8 R19 122 Ie3 124 2e3 126 3e3 128 4e3 130 5e3 132 7e3 R20 45 73e3 46 54e3 47 36e3 48 2e3 49 05e3 49 92e3 R21 1232.6 1254 .4 1276 5 1298 8 1321 4 1344 3 R22 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 R23 218 67 218 67 218 67 218.67 218 .67 218 67 R24 157 .28 157 .28 157.28 157 .28 157 .28 157 .28 R25 2423 5 2464 9 2506.7 2549 2591 7 2635 R26 904 .67 920 73 937 05 953 64 970.49 987 6 FLAP 1420 .e3 1406 .e3 1392 e3 1377 e3 1363 .e3 1349 e3 HLAP 87 .42e3 88 97e3 90 53e3 92 12e3 93 72e3 95 34e3 VTJP 8010 8010 8010 8010 8010 8010. NJAP 1836 1836 1836 1836 1836. 1836 JAPP 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949. lOJT 85 77e3 87.28e3 88 81e3 90 35e3 91 91e3 93 .49e3 JMLP 126 2e3 128 .4e3 130 6e3 132 8e3 135 .63 137. 2e3 FMLP 46 63e3 47.46e3 48 3e3 49 16e3 50 03e3 50.91e3 ILDP 45.61e3 53 .48e3 61.44e3 69.47e3 77.58e3 85.77e3 CPLP 309. 4e3 309 4e3 309. 4e3 309. 4e3 309. 4e3 309. 4e3 CPLR 250. 7e3 255 e3 259 3e3 263 8e3 268 2e3 272 8e3 YEAR 1996. 1997 1998 1999. 2000. 2001.

PAGE 140

128 Table C-7— continued YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 Rl 9552 3 9715.7 9880.9 10 05e3 R2 4005 4005 4005 4005 R3 665 73 665.73 665.73 665 73 R4 589.18 589.18 589.18 589 18 R5 1090 2 1090 2 1090 2 1090.2 R6 447 07 447.07 447 07 447.07 R7 431.9 431.9 431.9 4 31.9 R8 6009 6 6111 8 6215.1 6 319.6 R9 1911 4 1943 1974 9 2007 2 RIO 95 61e3 97 25e3 98 9e3 1 0 0 6e3 Rll 89 08e3 90 59e3 92 13e3 93 67e3 R12 1170 3 1170 3 1170.3 1170 3 R13 1359 8 1359 8 1359.8 1359.8 R14 134 9e3 137 2e3 13 9 4e3 14 1 7e3 R15 50 8e3 51 69e3 52 6e3 53 52e3 R16 89 08e3 90 59e3 92 13e3 93 67e3 R17 1170 3 1170 3 1170.3 1170 3 R18 1359.8 1359.8 1359.8 13 5 9.8 R19 134 9e3 137 2e3 13 9 4e3 141 7e3 R2 0 50 8e3 51 69e3 52 6e3 53 52e3 R21 1367 4 1390 8 1414 4 14 3 8 .4 R22 2914 8 2914 8 2914 8 2 914.8 R23 218 .67 218 67 218.67 218.67 R24 157 .28 157.28 157.28 157.28 R25 2678.7 2723 2767.8 2813 R26 1005 1022 6 1040 6 1058 8 FLAP 1334 e3 1319 e3 1304 e3 1289 e3 HLAP 96 98e3 98 64e3 100 3e3 102 .e3 VTJP 8010 8010 8010 8010 NJAP 1836 1836 1836 1836 JAPP 1949 1949 1949 1949 lOJT 95 09e3 96 71e3 98 34e3 100 e3 JMLP 139 5e3 141 8e3 144 2e3 146 5e3 FMLP 51. 8e3 52 71e3 53 64e3 54 58e3 ILDP 94 05e3 102 4e3 110 9e3 119 4e3 CPLP 309. 4e3 309 4e3 309 4e3 309. 4e3 CPLR 277 3e3 282 .e3 286 7e3 291. 4e3 YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005

PAGE 141

129 INITIAL LEVEL EQUATIONS The initial labor pool values are based upon a 20% union vs. 80% non-union labor market distribution (Tomsho, 1993). FLAP Florida Labor Pool This value is set at 1 ,500,000 individuals, a number sufficient to meet the demands for labor during the calculation period of 1 5 years. Labor supply and demand theory states that if there is an insufficient supply of individuals to meet the labor demands of the industry, then wages will increase until the supply of labor meets the demand for labor. HEAP Helper Labor Pool This value is the calculated number of construction Helpers using Levitt's article Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the U.S. (1979) and the BLMI data to quantify the current levels of construction craft employment. The initial value is 67,773 (30% of the current employment level) plus the initial Journeyman demand (4,873) plus the difference between the required number of apprentices and the actual number of apprentices (4,421) plus the initial number of helper separations (1,106) plus 1/2 year growth (332). VTJP Vo-tech Job Preparation Programs This value is the average number of individuals annually completing construction related job preparation in vocational and technical education institutions in Florida, per the F-DOE data. The initial value is 8,010 individuals. The calculated dropout rate in job prep programs is approximately 2,915 individuals annually. NJAP Nonjoint Apprenticeship Programs This value is the number of individuals currently enrolled in nonjoint apprenticeship training programs in Florida, per the F-BAT data. The initial value is the current enrollment (1,617) plus the initial number of dropouts (219) that was calculated per the survey data. JAPP Joint Apprenticeship Programs This value is the number of individuals currently enrolled in joint apprenticeship training programs in Florida, per the F-BAT data. The initial value is

PAGE 142

130 the current enrollment (1,792) plus the initial number of dropouts (157) that was calculated per the survey data. lOJT Informal On-the-Job Training This value is the number of semiskilled individuals in the construction work force. The initial value is the calculated number of helpers (67,773) plus the calculated number of hands transferring to journeyman status (4,873) plus the difference in the required number of apprentices minus the actual number of apprentices (4,421). JMLP Journeymen Labor Pool This value is the calculated number of journeymen using Levitt's article Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the U.S. (1979) and the BLMI data to quantify the current level of construction craft employment. The initial value is 113,807 individuals, the actual number of journeymen (11 0,059) plus the initial departure level (3,748). The required number of journeymen is 48.7% of the current employment level. FMLP Foremen Labor Pool This value is the calculated number of foremen using Levitt's article Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the U.S. (1979) and the BLMI data to quantify the current levels of construction employment. The initial value is 41,943 individuals, the actual number of foremen (41,127) plus the initial departure level (816). The required number of foremen is 18.2% of the current employment level. CPLP Construction Project Labor Pool This value is the BLMI estimate of the number of individuals employed in the construction industry for the year 1990. The 1990 employment level was estimated at 225,911 individuals and the average annual growth rate of 4,114 individuals and the average annual separations of 4,481 individuals for a yearly opening for 8,595 individuals.

PAGE 143

131 RATE EQUATIONS This Construction Labor Training Model utilizes data from the BLMI, the F-DOE, and the F-BAT. Note: The BLMI Occupational Employment Projections calculate the base 1990 employment level for Construction Trades (Occupation Code #87000000) of 225,911 individuals and a 2005 projected employment level of 287,621 individuals. The simple %A is ((287,621 225,911) 15) 287,621 = 1.82%; however, for calculating growth levels the compound %A must be used or the numbers will not work out. The formula for compound growth is 287,621 = 225,911(1 + k)'' where k = compound %A. Solving this equation yields the compound %A of 1.62%. Rate Equation #1 This equation is the number of people entering the helper labor pool (calculated data based upon manpower demand). This model also assumes no increase in formal craft training, therefore all industry growth must initiate in the Helper Labor Pool. The calculated, initial, number of helper separations is 1,106 individuals. The calculated annual growth in the Helper Labor Pool is 2,843 individuals. The calculated, initial, difference between the required number of apprentices and the actual number in formal apprenticeship programs is 4,421 individuals. Rate Equation #2 This equation is the number of individuals entering the publicly funded vocational and technical education job preparation programs located in Florida (per F-DOE data). The initial requirement is 4,005 individuals annually, 1,090 armual graduations and 2,915 annual dropouts. Rate Equation #3 This equation is the number of individuals entering the nonjoint craft apprenticeship programs during the calculation period. The initial level was developed from the F-BAT data. As of December 1992, there were 1,617 individuals in formal nonjoint construction apprenticeship programs in Florida. This calculates out to an armual level of 447 completions in nonjoint apprenticeship programs. Rate Equation #4 This equation is the number of individuals entering the joint craft apprenticeship programs during the calculation period. The initial level was developed

PAGE 144

132 from the F-BAT data. As of December 1992, there were 1,792 individuals in formal joint construction craft apprenticeship programs in Florida. This calculates out to an annual level of 432 completions in Joint apprenticeship programs. It is of interest to note that unionized construction holds approximately 20% of the construction market, yet have 10.8% more apprentices in training programs than do non-union contractors. Nonunion contractors would need to have approximately 7,168 individuals in apprenticeship programs to offer the same level of training, based upon market share, as union contractors. Rate Equation #5 This equation is the amiual number of individuals graduating from publicly funded vocational and technical education job preparation programs in Florida. This information was developed from F-DOE data and the survey data on dropout rates. The annual number of job prep graduates is 1,090 individuals. Rate Equation #6 This equation is the annual number of nonjoint apprenticeship completions supplying the demand for journeyman level craft workers and the annual dropout rate for nonjoint apprentices developed from the survey data. The calculated, initial, demand for skilled craft workers (journeyman & foreman) is 5,742 individuals per year. Nonjoint apprenticeship programs supply approximately 447 individuals per year to meet this demand (7.8% of demand). Rate Equation #7 This equation is the annual number of joint apprenticeship completions supplying the annual demand for journeyman level craft workers and the calculated armual Joint apprentice dropout rate per the survey data. The calculated, initial, demand for skilled craft workers (journeyman & foreman) is 5,742 individuals per year. Joint apprenticeship programs supply approximately 432 individuals per year to meet this demand (7.5% of demand). Rate Equation #8 This equation is the number of people moving from the helper labor pool and from vo-tech job prep programs, receiving informal on-the-job training, and eventually spending enough time in the industry to achieve "informally trained journeyman" status. This number is calculated to be 4,783 individuals initially (5,742 annual requirement 879 annual, formal, apprenticeship completions).

PAGE 145

133 Rate Equation #9 This equation is the number of journeymen who supply the annual demand for foremen, 1,564 individuals initially. Rate Equation #10 This equation is the annual demand for unskilled individuals on the job site. It is assumed that unskilled individuals must receive some form of on-the-job training in order to perform work tasks on the construction job site. Rate Equation #1 1 This equation is the annual demand for semiskilled individuals on the job site. This number is the inhial, annual, requirement for the number of helpers plus the difference between the calculated demand for apprentices and the actual supply of apprentices plus the calculated helper growth. Rate Equation #12 This equation is the number of nonjoint apprentices continuing in the training programs (total completions, or 1,617 447 = 1,170 individuals). Rate Equation #13 This equation is the number of Joint apprentices continuing in the training programs (total completions, or 1,792 432 = 1,360 individuals). Rate Equation #14 This equation is the annual demand for journeymen on the job site. Rate Equation #15 This equation is the annual demand for foremen on the job site.

PAGE 146

134 Rate Equation #16 This equation is returning the informally trained craft workers to the helper labor pool at the end of the calculation period each year. Rate Equation #17 This equation is returning the nonjoint apprentices to the program at the end of the calculation period each year. Rate Equation #18 This equation is returning the joint apprentices to the program at the end of the calculation period each year. Rate Equation #19 This equation is returning the journeymen to the Journeyman Labor Pool at the end of the calculation period each year. Rate Equation #20 This equation is returning the foremen to the Foremen Labor Pool at the end of the calculation period each year. Rate Equation #21 This equation is the number of individuals who drop out of the Helper Labor Pool during the calculation period. Rate Equation #22 This equation is the number of individuals who drop out of publicly funded vocational and technical education job preparation programs prior to completion. It should be noted that dropouts in this category are not considered part of the BLMI yearly separation calculation since these individuals do not enter the industry until graduation from the program. Also, the supply of individuals graduating from HVAC job prep programs exceeds the estimated number of annual openings available to these individuals by 257 openings (supply is greater than demand). Therefore, the estimated demand for HVAC mechanics is utilized in the model, not the estimate supply.

PAGE 147

135 Rate Equation #23 This equation is the number of individuals who leave the nonjoint apprenticeship training programs prior to completion. Rate Equation #24 This equation is the number of individuals who drop out of the joint apprenticeship training programs prior to completion. Rate Equation #25 This equation is the number of journeymen who annually leave the industry. Rate Equation #26 This equation is the number of foremen who annually leave the industry. Auxiliary Equation CPLR and #A27 This equation is the construction industry demand for labor during the calculation period. It is used to verify that the calculated growth in the model equals the BLMI calculated labor requirements at the end of model time period (year 2005).

PAGE 148

REFERENCES CITED AFL-CIO. (1983). The Builders: The Seventy-five Year History of the Building and Construction Trades Department. Washington, D.C.: Author. AFL-CIO. (1971, November). Building and Construction Trades Department. Proceedings of the Ninth Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.: Author. Allen, Steven G. (1988, April). Declining Unionization in Construction: The Facts and Reasons. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 343-359. Associated General Contractors. (1991, October). AGC's Manpower and Training Services. Constructor, vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 23-25. Borcherding, John D. (1976, December). Improving Productivity in Industrial Construction. Journal of the Construction Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 101, no. C04, pp. 599-614. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. (1991). National Apprenticeship Program. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1992, August). How Workers Get Their Training: A 1991 Update. Bulletin 2407. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Labor. Business Roundtable. (1983). More Construction for the Money, Summary Report of the Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project. New York: Author. Business Roundtable. (1982, September). Training Problems in Open Shop Construction. New York: Author. Business Roundtable. (1982, July). Exclusive Jurisdiction in Construction. New York: Author. Business Roundtable. (1982, March). Government Limitations on Training Innovations. New York: Author. 136

PAGE 149

137 Coble, Richard J. (1992). An Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to the DrugFree Workplace for General Contractors. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida. University Microfilms, Inc., no. 9303981. Dedobbeleer, Nicole, Champagne, Francois, and German, Pearl. (1990, November). Safety Performance among Union and Nonunion Workers in the Construction Industry. Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1099-1103. Diekmann, James E. and Peppier, Scott E. (1984, March). Union and Open Shop Labor Cost Differences. Journal of the Construction Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 87-99. Dillman, Don. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Edmister, Richard R. (1991, November/December). Construction Labor Agreements: Perspectives on the Past and Prospects for the Future. Construction Business Review, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 52-56. Engineering News-Record. (1992, November 30). Contractors Jockey for Training Support. Engineering News-Record, vol. 229, no. 22, pp. 18-19. Federle, Mark O., Rowings, James E. Jr., and DeVany, Thomas S. (1993, March). Model of Career Choice for Craft Workers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 105-114. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1993, August). 19931994 Florida Education Finance Program, Statistical Report. Tallahassee: Author. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Apprenticeship. (1990). Standards for Apprenticeship. Tallahassee: Author. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Labor Market Information. (1992, October). Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections: 1990-2005. Tallahassee: Author. Foster, Howard G. (1970, February). Nonapprentice Sources of Training in Construction. Monthly Labor Review, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 21-26. Foster, Howard G. (1973, July). The Labor Market in Nonunion Construction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1071-1085. Foster, Howard G. (1978, February). Industrial Relations in Construction: 1970-1977. Industrial Relations, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-17.

PAGE 150

138 Fox, Arthur. (1988, October, 20). Looming People Shortages put Industry on Alert. Engineering News-Record, vol. 221, no. 6, pp. 24-25. Franklin, William S. (1973, July). A Comparison of Formally and Informally Trained Journeymen in Construction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1086-1094. Gall, Gilbert J. (1988). The Politics of Right to Work: The Labor Federations as Special Interests, 1942-1979, New York: Greenwood Press. Gasperow, Robert. (1990). Labor Supply in the 1990s, A Construction Industry Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Construction Labor Research Council. Glover, Robert W. (1986). Apprenticeship Lessons from Abroad. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Gustman, Alan L., and Segal, Martin. (1974, January). The Skilled-Unskilled Wage Differential in Construction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 261-275. Haber, William. (1930). Industrial Relations in the Building Industry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Haber, William, and Levinson, Harold M. (1956). Labor Relations and Productivity in the Building Trades. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial Relations. Hamilton, Stephen F. (1990). Apprenticeship for Adulthood. New York: Free Press. HoUenbeck, Kevin and Dean, George. (1987). Understanding the Dynamics of Postsecondary Vocational Education: A Design Study. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Kenny, Clair, T. (1988). A Study of the Perceptions of Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Union Toward Secondary Electrical Trade Instruction in Vocational Industrial Education. Doctoral Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University; University Park, Pennsylvania. University Microfilms Inc., no. 8818010. Levitt, Raymond E. (1979, December). Union Versus Nonunion Construction in the U.S. Journal of the Construction Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 105, no. C04, pp. 289-303. Liska, Roger W. (1994, January). Contractor Training Programs: A Key to Company Survival. Alexandria, Virginia: Construction Industry Workforce Foundation.

PAGE 151

139 Maloney, William F. (1978, December). Productivity Bargaining in Construction. Journal of the Construction Division. American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 104, no. C04, pp. 369-383. McCollough, Mark. (1993, February). Total Quality Management: What Gets in Industry's Way? FMI Management Letter, Raleigh, N.C.: FMI Corp. Metcalf, David H. (1985). The Economics of Vocational Education: Past Evidence and Future Considerations. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Mills, Daniel Q. (1972). Industrial Relations and Manpower in Construction, Cambridge: MIT Press. Motley, James A. (1907, November/December). Apprenticeship in American Trade Unions. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, vol. 25, no. 11-12, pp. 9-111. Northrup, Herbert R. (1985). Open Shop Construction Revisited. Philadelphia: Wharton School Industrial Research Unit, University of Pennsylvania. Northrup, Herbert R. (1989, Spring). Construction Doublebreasted Operations and PreHire Agreements; Assessing the Issues. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 215-238. Northrup, Herbert R. (1990, Spring). Arizona Construction Labor: A Case Study of Union Decline. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 161-179. Northrup, Herbert R. (1992, Fall). The 'Helper' Controversy in the Construction Industry. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 421-435. Perloff, Jeffery M. (1981, Fall). Labor Market Adjustments in the Unionized Contract Construction Industry. Journal of Labor Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 337-353. Richardson, George P., and Pugh, Alexander L. (1981). Introduction of System Dynamics Modeling with Dynamo. Cambridge: MIT Press. Roberts, Edward, B. (Editor). (1978). Managerial Applications of System Dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Roberts, Nancy. (Editor). (1983). Introduction of Computer Simulation, a Systems Dynamics Modeling Approach. Reading, Pennsylvania: AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Rosenbaum, David B. (1991, December 2). Training Plan Hinges on Owners. Engineering News-Record, vol. 227, no. 22, pp. 7.

PAGE 152

140 Rubens, Beatrice G. and Harrisson, John A.C. (1980). Apprenticeship in Foreign Countries: R&D Monograph 77 Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Labor. Schulenburger, David E. (1978, July). A Contour Theoretic Approach to the Determination of Negotiated Wage Change in the Building Construction Industry. Economic Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 395-410. Tomsho, Robert (1993, November 18). Union "Salts" Infiltrate Construction Industry. Wall Street Journal, vol. 222, no. 99, 1993, pp. Bl. United States Bureau of the Census. (1993). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993, (113th edition). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Labor. (1975). Pattern Standards of Apprenticeship and Training for the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Labor. (1938). National Standards for Steamfitting Apprenticeship, Bulletin No. 28. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. Weinberg, Earl (1969, February). Reducing Skill Shortages in Construction. Monthly Labor Review, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 3-9. Zieger, Robert H. (1986). American Workers, American Unions, 1920-1985. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

PAGE 153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tom George began working in the construction industry in 1969. In 1970 he began his plumbing apprenticeship and passed his journeyman's licensing exam in 1976. In January 1977, he was admitted into the construction management program at the University of Nebraska. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in December 1981. During the summers of 1978 through 1981, and upon graduation, he worked for Peter Kiewit Sons' Company in Omaha, Nebraska; Alameda, California; and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. This work consisted of modular oil processing facilities for the oil fields on Alaska's northern coast. He rotated through the estimating, scheduling, field engineering and cost engineering disciplines as the need for his professional development dictated. His final assignments for Kiewit included craft superintendent and estimate sponsor for $100 million construction projects. Mr. George was admitted to the Master of Business Administration program at the University of Nebraska in 1986. He received his MBA degree with an emphasis in finance in May 1987. Prior to admission into the University of Florida College of Architecture doctoral program in August 1991, he was the site project manager (1987-1989) for a multimillion-dollar-fast-track processing plant addition for the Dial Corporation in 141

PAGE 154

Omaha, Nebraska, and he developed and implemented construction management procedures (1990-1991) for a mechanical and electrical design firm in Lincoln, Nebraska. These projects included installation of state-of-the-art process control and instrumentation systems and support systems for digital telecommunication switches and fiber-optic networks.

PAGE 155

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Paul Oppenheim, Chairman Associate Professor of Building Construction I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. L_--'^Smes Hensel Professor of Educational Leadership I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Robert Stroh Associate Professor of Building Construction 1 certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Leon Wetherington Assistant Professor of Building Construction

PAGE 156

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of History This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Architecture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. April, 1994. Dean, College! of Architecture Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E4GIV4J9Y_J4WBPW INGEST_TIME 2014-12-06T00:00:48Z PACKAGE AA00026675_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES