Proactive Technologies Report – September, 2018

In 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 

Only 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

One 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

Employers 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