BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 56
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Sandre Swanson, Chair
SB 56 (Corbett) - As Amended: June 20, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 25-15
SUBJECT : Apprenticeship oversight.
SUMMARY : Streamlines auditing requirements of the California
Apprenticeship Council. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the following information to be submitted to the
Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) when
an apprenticeship program applies to create a new program or
expand an existing program:
a) A written plan that sets out the number of new
apprentices the applicant seeks to enroll during the next
five years, including the applicant's budget for training
the new apprentices and a detailed explanation of how the
applicant intends to provide sufficient funding to meet
that budget;
b) Evidence that the applicant has obtained sufficient
commitments from employers to employ the new apprentices so
as to ensure, to the extent feasible, that the new
apprentices will be employed continuously throughout the
term of the apprenticeship;
c) Evidence that the applicant has, or will obtain,
suitable facilities to train the new apprentices; and,
d) A plan for the recruitment and selection of new
apprentices, including advertising the new apprenticeship
opportunities and outreach to organizations that promote
apprenticeship opportunities to women and underrepresented
minorities.
2)Requires the Chief of DAS to disapprove the application where
the above requirements are not met or are deemed inadequate,
as specified, and set forth a process for an applicant to
amend its application.
SB 56
Page 2
3)Eliminates the requirement in existing law that the Division
of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) randomly audit approved
apprenticeship programs during each five-year period, and
instead establishes the following new requirements for audits:
a) During an audit, DAS must attempt to contact a
statistically valid sample of apprentices that failed to
complete the apprenticeship program to ascertain the
reasons why the apprentices did not complete the program;
b) DAS is required to give priority in conducting audits to
programs that have been identified as having deficiencies;
c) DAS is required to audit all new or newly expanded
apprenticeship programs one year after the approval of
creating or expanding the program;
d) If DAS finds evidence that information provided to it by
a program has been purposefully misstated, it shall
immediately investigate and determine whether an audit is
necessary;
e) If DAS determines that a program has been the subject of
two or more meritorious complaints within a five-year
period, it shall schedule an audit within three months;
and,
f) If DAS determines that a program that has had at least
two graduating classes has an annual apprentice completion
rate below 50% of the average completion rate, it shall
schedule the program for an audit within three months.
4)Requires each program to provide each apprentice, on at least
a semiannual basis, a statement showing specified information,
including the total number of hours of training and
instruction completed, and the number of hours required for
graduation, and the apprentice's expected graduation date.
6)Require programs to report apprentice registration, change of
address, graduation, and termination data to DAS on a monthly
basis in an electronic format.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides a framework for promoting and developing
SB 56
Page 3
apprenticeship training through the California Apprenticeship
Council (CAC) and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards
(DAS) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).
DAS enforces apprenticeship standards for, among other things,
working conditions, classroom instruction and the specific
skills required for state certification as a journeyperson in
an apprentice occupation.
2)Requires that all apprenticeship programs be approved by the
Chief of the DAS and empowers the Chief to approve
apprenticeship programs in any trade anywhere in the state,
including cities and trade areas, if the apprentice training
is "needs based" to justify the creation of a program, as
specified.
3)Requires that the DAS to randomly audit apprenticeship
programs every five years, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : Current law requires the DAS to audit apprenticeship
programs every five years to ensure that state standards are
being met and that the apprentices are being safely and
appropriately trained. However, according to DAS's most recent
annual report from 2009, there were 680 state-approved
apprenticeship programs, making audit activities difficult.
In place of the current auditing requirements, this bill focuses
the auditing process on programs that are new or newly expanded,
as well as programs that have low graduation rates, prior
meritorious complaints, or have purposefully misstated
information to DAS.
This bill also requires new or expanding programs to submit a
written report stating their long-term plans, their ability to
meet those plans, and a recruitment strategy that includes
outreach to women and underrepresented minorities. This bill
also establishes monthly electronic reporting requirements so
that DAS can track the progress of the programs, as well as
require reports be given to the apprentice so he or she can keep
track of his or her own progress.
Proponents argue that this bill is necessary because the DAS
should be given the tools to strengthen oversight and make
SB 56
Page 4
apprenticeship programs better. With the State of California
spending almost $31 million annually on apprenticeship training,
and private industry and labor contributing an additional $120
million annually in the construction industry alone, supporters
argue that it is important that we know how this substantial
investment is being spent.
Supporters believe that this bill establishes basic guidelines
for the approval or expansion of apprenticeship programs. Under
its provisions, the applicant would submit a written plan that
includes evidence of suitable facilities, the selection criteria
and recruitment plans for apprenticeship applicants, an estimate
of the number of apprentices for enrollment, and employer
commitments for on-the-job training and employment.
Opponents argue that this bill will impose onerous requirements
on apprenticeship program applicants at tremendous cost to the
DAS, and that requiring applicants to demonstrate adequate
funding, facilities, participating employers will burden them
with additional costs just as they are getting started. They
believe that this bill creates an unfair process where new
applicants will be placed under heavy scrutiny to which existing
programs were never subjected.
Finally, opponents object that this bill does not address the
impact of a 1999 law that imposed a "needs test" requirement for
the approval of new apprenticeship programs. Opponents contend
that this law has been "unfairly exploited by construction
unions to block the approval of new or expanding programs, thus
cutting competition in training and limiting the choice in
comprehensive training programs for people seeking a career in
the construction trades." Opponents indicate that they might be
able to remove their opposition to this bill if amendments were
added to repeal the "needs test" provisions from current law.
PRIOR LEGISLATION :
SB 1397 (Corbett) of 2010 was identical to this bill. It was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger because the bill "imposes new
requirements on new or expanding programs without subjecting
existing programs to the same level of scrutiny" and did not
address the "needs-based" conditions for apprenticeship program
approval.
AB 734 (Evans) of 2008 was nearly identical to this bill. It
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger for similar reason
SB 56
Page 5
discussed above.
AB 947 (Niello) of 2007 would have removed the "needs-based"
conditions from the approval of apprenticeship programs. The
first policy committee hearing for the bill was cancelled at the
author's request.
AB 2929 (Laird) of 2006 contained language on the auditing of
apprenticeship programs that was very similar to AB 734. It was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger because it did not address the
"needs-based" conditions for approving an apprenticeship program
in the building and construction trades.
AB 51 (Koretz) of 2005, which was similar to AB 2837 (discussed
below), was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger because he did not
feel that there was "compelling evidence that would warrant the
extensive reporting requirements" in the bill.
AB 2837 (Firebaugh) of 2004 would have, among other things,
required any building and construction trades apprenticeship
program to graduate at least one apprentice within a two-year
period in order to be eligible to receive state reimbursement.
It was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, as he viewed the bill as unnecessary in
view of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency's development
of quality control measures for apprenticeship programs.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Conference of Carpenters
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council (Sponsor)
Opposition (unless amended)
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Analysis Prepared by : Lorie Erickson/ L. & E. / (916)
319-2091
SB 56
Page 6