Such details aren’t what a politician wants to hear in midcampaign. And in a race dominated by economic worries, job training has become as popular as applepie. Bill Clinton wants to make welfare recipients learn skills and would require firms with 50 or more workers to devote 1.5 percent of the payroll to training. George Bush would triple spending for disadvantaged youths and jobless workers. Politically, these schemes hit the right buttons. They offer aid and the prospect of dignity; when members of Congress protest that freer trade with Mexico will cost jobs, a training program is a handy response. Too handy, in fact. Says Washington labor economist Lou Jacobson: “People have gone overboard on the potential for training.”
No question: a more skilled work force makes the economy more productive, and highly trained workers are better able to find a new footing when conditions change. Gary F. Saunders of Biscoe, N.C., testifies to the potential. In the 10 months since the closing of the textile mill where he’d worked for 18 years, Saunders, 39, has used federal manpower grants to finish his computer-science courses at a community college. Now, thanks to unemployment benefits and more tuition aid, he’s studying full time for a bachelor’s degree. Unlike thousands of others displaced from the textile industry, he sees a bright future in programming. “Sometimes I think they ought to make everyone who’s on unemployment get some kind of training,” Saunders says.
Still, evidence that government-sponsored training raises productivity or incomes is hard to find. And the latest politically inspired plans are unlikely to do better. Clinton’s plan won’t benefit the many employers whose operations may simply not require great skills. In other workplaces, the issue is not how much is spent but whom it’s spent on. “Most of the money U.S. companies spend on training is spent for executives and managers, not for production workers, “says Rutgers University manpower expert Carl Vanhorn. How can the government monitor 185,000 firms to make sure that line workers get their share? So far, Clinton hasn’t said.
Bush’s top priority is boosting the skills of people who’ve lost their jobs. But experts overwhelmingly agree that retraining is a poor investment. Veteran workers usually have skills; they mainly need advice on how to search for a job-and they need to get back to work fast if they are to regain their former income level. “Training for many is a palliative, an escape,” says New York job counselor Barry Weisband. Although counseling comes far cheaper than tuition, the government, astonishingly, makes almost no effort to provide it.
Some new programs offer promising alternatives. New Jersey will spend $250 million over five years to back employers’own efforts-provided the employers convince a committee that the training will help increase workers’ incomes. The employer must design the training and share the cost, to ensure that the instruction is related to real business needs.
At Kennedy airport in New York, a special program for workers laid off after the 1991 collapse of Pan American World Airways provides an antidote to the enthusiasm for retraining. Many participants share the ambivalence of pilot Charles Wittrick, 58, who talks of studying theology but admits, “I keep hoping I can get a good flying job.” To help them, the center offers a three-day workshop on searching for a job, a “job club” to compare notes and counselors who help former mechanics and ticket agents think about how to sell their skills in other industries. Training.? It’s available-but before veteran machinist Thomas Taggart could win the OK for a commercial-driving class, he had to visit a garage to observe the work he’ll do if he gets the requisite driver’s license and is hired to repair buses. “When people don’t know what they’re getting into, the success rate falls dramatically,” says consultant Kenneth Ryan.
The government’s 30 years of experimentation with training plans offers little cause for optimism that a major initiative will have a major impact. Even the everpopular programs for poor youths don’t accomplish much; most participants in the 16-to-21 age group earn less afterward than they did before enrolling. A generally unsuccessful training program, of course, may still produce plenty of successes. But it is as likely to be a placebo as a magic bullet.
