|
Issues | ||
Comments on Workforce Investment Act AmendmentsFebruary 26, 2007 Ms. Maria Flynn RE: RIN 1205-AB46 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Amendments, published in the Federal Register December 20, 2006 Dear Ms. Flynn: On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, I am responding to your request for comments on proposed rules regarding the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Amendments. AFSCME represents thousands of employees in Employment Services (ES) and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offices throughout the country. Many of the proposed rules make significant policy changes which, we believe, exceed the Department’s current statutory authority and which Congress specifically has failed to approve to date. In particular, we believe the effect of the regulations would be to create a state option to block grant the WIA and Wagner-Peyser ES programs. As you know, a block grant has been one of the highly contentious issues in the WIA reauthorization process, and the Senate has refused to approve a block grant in any form. If finalized, these rules would lead to a block grant because of the combination of the requirement for co-location of ES and WIA operations and the repeal of the Wagner-Peyser merit standard requirement. States could transfer their Wagner-Peyser funds to local one-stop operations where the two funding streams would be merged. As a result, the proposed rules attempt to accomplish through the regulatory process a policy change which the Administration has been unable to secure in Congress. We also have further specific concerns. Elimination of the merit-system requirements (Section 652.215) We strongly oppose this modification to the current regulations, which require that state agency merit staff employees provide Wagner-Peyser services. We are concerned that this change will lead to the end of the 70 year old Federal-State public labor exchange. While seriously under-funded for decades, the national public labor exchange is uniquely designed to serve the public interest by providing free job matching and counseling services to both job seekers and employers without discrimination of any kind. It also helps fulfill federal statutory mandates such as the requirement for veterans hiring preferences and the administration of the UI “work test.” We do not see how private job boards or decentralized labor exchange programs are either as efficient or effective in providing the labor market information and specialized services that many workers and employers want and need. The Preamble in the proposed rules states that the merit staffing requirement is “an anachronism that creates rigidity and severely limits flexibility in the delivery of services.” However, the merit system is a requirement for civil service personnel to provide services. Civil service rules were created to ensure accountability for the use of government funds without dictating to states precise personnel standards. Civil service systems help ensure that government services are performed by individuals that meet objective professional qualifications, ensure fair and non-discriminatory treatment of applicants, and protect employees from political coercion. We do not think such a public policy would ever be an “anachronism.” Public employees working under civil service systems must serve all job seekers equally. In contrast, private job placement contractors often engage in “creaming” the most qualified candidates and ignoring the more challenging cases. Furthermore, the explicit language of the Wagner-Peyser Act does not contemplate administration by any entities other than state agencies. Indeed, during the creation of WIA, proposals to eliminate or modify Section 1 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, which create a nationwide system of public employment offices, were rejected. Integration of Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Services at One-Stop Centers (Section 662.100) Current law and regulations permit the ES to operate as affiliate sites or be linked electronically as part of the one-stop delivery system. This policy recognizes that co-location in all instances may not be advisable and that such a requirement would impede the ability of states to provide some labor exchange services in all areas of the states. The co-location requirement would cause a further geographic consolidation of resources and limit the availability of in-person services, especially in rural areas. This requirement is inconsistent with current law and too restrictive. Labor Participation on State and Local Workforce Boards (Preamble) In the Preamble you requested comments on interpreting the meaning of the word “representatives” for determining the composition of the state and local WIA Boards. The proposal is to interpret the word “representatives” as meaning one representative from each representative group rather than two or more representatives. The proposed rules suggest that you were contemplating this change based on the suggestion of one commentator. The statute is clear that there should be representatives from each group, and the word “representatives” is plural, meaning more than one, or two or more. The statute lists each group separately preceded by the word “representatives.” For example, the statute requires that the WIA board be comprised of “representatives of labor organizations…representatives of individuals with experience and expertise in the delivery of workforce investment activities….” The statutory requirement for representatives should not be limited to one; indeed, the requirement for “representatives” leaves open the possibility of more than two representatives from a particular group. Therefore, we oppose such a change as contrary to the statute and inadvisable. As a representative of workers who stand to benefit from federal workforce policies, organized labor participation should be encouraged and enhanced instead of being further restricted. Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) for Youth (Section 664.510) We believe DOL lacks the statutory authority to lower the eligibility age for ITAs to youth 16 and 17 years of age. Authority for ITAs appears in the adult and dislocated programs but not in the section creating the youth programs. Teenagers who are 16 and 17 are not adults and therefore would not qualify for the adult programs. In effect, this change creates education and training vouchers for high school dropouts and other at-risk youths. Congress clearly intended youth programs to be provided through grants and contracts, partly as a way to protect them from unscrupulous training providers.Congress appears to be moving toward prohibiting the Department from issuing final regulations until the WIA and TAA programs are reauthorized. We strongly concur with this judgment. The proper place for decisions about these and other workforce policy issues is in the Congress. We urge you to withdraw these rules not only because they preempt the Congressional process but also because we think they are unwise public policy. Very truly yours, Kerry Korpi
|
 |
||
.gif)
