Apprenticeship Programs Shake-Up Stalls

Proponents of modernizing the nation’s apprenticeship system have been left hanging again, but a new administration in Washington could rekindle hopes for change that recently died with a withdrawn U.S. Department of Labor rule.

And should the Trump administration pick up the ball, debate that killed earlier efforts could intensify, especially within the ranks of the construction industry — one in which the stakes are particularly high. Workforce shortages plague the industry even as apprenticeship programs and participation grow (see Chart below).

At issue: the proportionate role of government, unions, and the private sector in remaking existing programs and crafting competing or complementary ones to better serve the interests of participants, industry, and the economy. All sides, however, agree apprenticeships — ideally with some sort of makeover — will be central to efforts to address industry’s (and especially construction’s) future labor needs. But that broad consensus hasn’t been enough to bring reform efforts across the finish line.

That latest false start, a DOL rule overhauling government-registered apprentice programs, came in December, falling victim to withering fire from all sides. The rule’s aim was to revise government-registered apprenticeship programs (GRAP) regulations with a focus on enhanced worker protections and equity, improved program quality, updated state governance provisions and bringing feeder programs such as career and technical education (CTE) programs more into the mix. But a year into rulemaking DOL withdrew the proposal, citing feedback making it clear more work was needed to “balance the needs of all apprenticeship stakeholders.”

The rule grew out of the Biden administration’s 2021 scrapping of a 2017 Trump administration program promoting development of an alternate apprenticeship model. Its Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program put apprenticeship program development in the hands of third parties like trade and industry groups, corporations, educational institutions, unions and non-profits. IRAP was envisioned as operating parallel and equivalent to the longstanding GRAP model backers charge is burdened by excessive government regulations and largely failing in its mission to train enough new workers.

IRAP, however, pointedly excluded the construction industry when revisions came out in 2019. That didn’t sit well with some leading industry voices. Associated General Contractors issued a statement protesting DOL’s stance that construction jobs didn’t align with the program’s focus on “high-quality” jobs. Including construction, AGC said, would have helped firms address a situation in which “it remains too difficult for many firms and their partners to establish apprenticeship programs for construction workers. Barriers for apprenticeship programs often include the excessive costs incurred during the rigid and inflexible registration process.”

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) pressed the case, too, saying “All U.S. workers should have the opportunity to participate in DOL’s new industry programs, particularly as federal registered apprenticeship programs supply only a small fraction of the construction industry’s workforce.”

Many entities representing employers utilizing unionized skilled craft workers, however, applauded the exclusion. Commenting in 2022 on the Biden DOL’s intent to effectively end the Trump IRAP program, National Electrical Contractors Association said an IRAP approach would threaten the integrity of the well-established and proven IBEW-NECA JATC apprenticeship program. “Two parallel programs within the same industry could cause confusion, disorganization, and staggered standards amongst apprentices and journeyworkers. This could create a severe safety risk to the apprentices and journeyworkers on the job as well as the public.”

These concerns, and others, about the path forward for apprenticeships persist. They surfaced in construction industry comments on the DOL proposed rule reforming GRAPs scrapped in December.

In its March 2024 comments AGC took issue with a range of proposals including minimum durations for on-the-job-training components of apprenticeships; stricter data and record-keeping requirements; policing of sponsors by participating employers; one-size-fits-all diversity requirements for programs; a single prescriptive apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio; and establishment of baseline qualifications and required training for instructors.

Pushing back against reforms that appear to further cement GRAPs’s hold on apprenticeships, the AGC statement noted, “Contractors across the country are regularly developing their own recruiting and on-the-job-training programs that meet the needs of their companies, projects, and markets yet for various reasons are established outside of the registered model and standards. Expanding all training opportunities to enable more skilled workers to enter the construction industry is an integral component necessary to help address the entire workforce shortage.”

In its March 2024 comment, NECA voiced support for some proposals but opposed others. A top concern was creation of career and technical education (CTE) apprenticeships and similar proposals to open up new pathways that would challenge the joint apprenticeship model that has served the electrical contracting industry well. While reforms are needed, it said, nothing should be done that would “undermine the existing registered apprenticeship system and programs in any way.”

ABC, which represents non-union contractors, opposed the package on multiple grounds, but singled out “efforts by unions and their state government allies to suppress new GRAP approvals and restrict taxpayer-funded contracts and grants to only businesses and GRAPs affiliated with certain unions.”

GRAPs need smart reform and perhaps competition on a more level playing field, it said in a statement, because they’re struggling to meet the industry’s workforce needs. The incoming Trump administration recognizes that and could restart the GRAP reform with a different and more industry-favorable set of priorities, ABC said.

There’s evidence that could be the case; the America First Policy Institute’s Project 2025 lauds private-sector leadership on workforce training, endorsing IRAPs and CTEs for that role and restructuring of the GRAP model. And given the new administration’s focus on growing the economy and the workforce, the construction industry might be an integral part of any changes to apprenticeship programs.