The US Workforce Competitive Advantage Has Declined 
For Decades – Not for Lack of Resources, Effort or Base Talent, But For Strategy
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
The United States has, by objective measures, not done a “world-class” job of developing the new workers it needs. True, it is difficult to develop accurate core skill courses meant to reflect the jobs of today and the future when by the time these programs are ready and students ready to graduate, entire industries have already moved these jobs elsewhere offshore. But institutions have not done a good job of preparing for the future that is most likely, not the one they want to create, either.
Educational policies of the 1980’s and 1990’s eliminated “vocational” training in high schools to focus on college preparation, assuming everyone was suited and planning for college. College-educated officials went with what they knew and understood. But they could not agree on strategy, complicating matters further, which lead to a perpetual debate on how best to prepare students for college. This yielded versions of standardized tests and a massive test preparation industry.
click here to expandIn the 1990’s an attempt was made to return, somewhat, to developing skills that industries said they needed, and the United States Departments or Labor and Education’s National Skill Standards programs were born. I participated in developing skill standards and finding ways to integrate standards into worker training, since education could only take these so far. But it became clear, to me, that standardizing skills for a rapidly evolving industry using old fashioned tools posed more challenges for the employer, showed little return and standards eroded rather quickly with no defined responsibility or budget to maintain and revalidate them.
Meanwhile, the average United States SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) test scores between 2000 and 2016 showed a slight decline, but certainly no improvement through this period. After adjustments to scoring algorithms didn’t improve scores, it was decided in 2016 that the SAT test again needed to be re-designed. As with so many instances in the U.S. when statistics do not show the results expected, some lean toward finding a way to show improvement without making improvements.
When these efforts did not appear to solve the college preparation issues or meet the needs of employers, an effort grew to address “skills employers say they need.” Today, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) learning in K-12 is education’s focus – things that everyone expected were taught in K-12 anyway. But both these efforts still leave the employer to develop the higher order skills and task mastery they need even if the 
employer does not, or wishes not to, recognize this requirement. Billions of dollars were spent in the last 4 decades and generations of workers completed these programs, yet workforce development still seems in its infancy.
How is the US doing compared to world’s developed and developing countries? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) published the results of their 2015 PISA tests and it shows the U.S. has a lot of work ahead of it. Read More
The Skills Gap Solution; Employers Still Reluctant to Commit to Role Only They Can Fill
by Staff
Education cannot, and should not be asked to, close the “skills gap” on their own. Employers have been concerned about the “skills gap” since the 1980’s, and the nature and location of the job has continued to change…at an accelerating rate. 
Employers have convinced themselves to wait for education to close the gap. In the meantime, tremendous resources continue to be expended, but the gap continues to grow.
Educational institutions are not suited, staffed, funded and equipped to train workers for every job, for every employer, nor should they be. Educational institutions do their best work when they build the labor supply with strong, relevant basic and core skills (including STEM), and industry-general skills. Whether those efforts are worthwhile and the resources well-spent depend on two important things: 1) does an employer see value in hiring a graduate, and 2) is there a method in place to ensure those skills are integrated into mastery of the job-tasks the employer needs performed; the value that will influence the employer to retain them.
click here to expandOnly employers can train the worker on tasks they need performed and that affect their bottom line. They have the need, the facilities, the most current equipment for their operation and the personnel with current expertise. Yet, in reality most employer’s methods amount to hardly more than pairing two people and hoping for the best. This is where the gap is most profound and continues to grow. Read More
Assessing Employees With Past Drug Addictions for 
Work Tricky
by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.
A prevalent challenge faced by many employers is what to do with job applicants with a record of past drug use. Current drug use detected during screening is fairly cut and dry, but candidates that are going through, or went through, treatment and have maintained a clean life-style since need more care to avoid running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on past drug addiction in most cases. In a article for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website by Roy Maurer, “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on past drug addiction. These individuals qualify as having a disability if they successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program or are currently participating in such a program and are no longer using prohibited drugs.”
click here to expandOne expert he interviewed, Rayford Irvin, the Houston district director for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), said “Opioid addiction is a disability that is affecting millions across the United States, yet many are regaining control over their lives by participating in supervised rehabilitation programs.” “When a worker has a record of such a disability and is performing his job proficiently, an employer cannot lawfully preclude the worker from employment because he is receiving treatment for his addiction.”
Lawyers interviewed for the article suggested that employers amend their policy manuals regarding drugs and specify exclusions in line with the ADA and reasonable accommodation provisions issued by the EEOC.
Aside from the practices used in the recruitment, interviewing and selection process which Mr. Maurer outlined fairly well, any defenses for not accommodating an individual with prior drug use, but who has completed or is currently participating in a treatment program, or decisions on what that reasonable accommodation would look like would have to be made based on data from a credible and thorough job/task analysis. Read More
Estimating the Costs Associated With Skipping Employer-Based Structured On-The-Job Training
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
It should go without saying that if the employer has no deliberate strategy to train workers for the tasks they were hired to perform, the employer will probably never realize the maximum output possible from a worker. Multiple workers operating under-capacity can create exorbitant, and unnecessary, costs to the employer – bleeding from profits and often leading to sweeping and irreparable reactions from management as they try to “fix” all but the obvious.
The effect of worker capacity on any business strategy is the least understood of factors, but one as important as innovation, process improvement and zero defect strategies. After all, fundamental to each of these strategies is the worker’s ability to competently carry the intended actions to maximize those efforts efficiently.
click here to expandEmployers need to seriously consider the human factors, not ignore them and focus on everything but this. After decades of neglect, supported by workforce development institutions that have no tools to address this stage of worker development and often unknowingly promulgate distractions in their efforts to claim they do, management has come to simplify the human factor into a cost that can be easily eliminated or replaced by a lower cost alternative in another location. Lacking in this reaction is the underlying fact that moving operations to lower-wage labor markets with even more need for training (e.g. new challenges such as language, culture) only appears to be adding to profits short-term; the same problems exist, but the lower cost of labor makes it more tolerable even if greater challenges to worker performance now exist. As wages rise, these challenges become more pronounced and management becomes more critical.
Total Cost of Ownership formulas, such as the one used by the Reshoring Iniative, try to capture the hidden and overlooked costs of off-shoring operations, with labor challenges being one factor considered. But even so, the factor’s significance is understated.
Here is a simple formula for estimating the cost/benefit of a worker’s contribution to the organization for consideration: Read More
Read the full August, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo;