0001 1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS 2 3 ************************************************** 4 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & TRAINING 5 RHODE ISLAND STATE APPRENTICE COUNCIL 6 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RULES & REGULATIONS 7 RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP 8 PROGRAMS UNDER TITLE 28, CHAPTER 45 9 ************************************************** 10 Date: November 20, 2007 11 Time: 9:30 a.m. 12 Place: Department of Labor & Training 13 1511 Pontiac Avenue Building 73 Boardroom 14 Cranston, Rhode Island 15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT OF THE APPRENTICE COUNCIL: 17 William Holmes, Chairman 18 Edwin Sullivan William Lepore, Jr. 19 William Riley Joseph F. Contarino 20 Valentino Lombardi, Esq., Legal Council 21 22 23 RHODE ISLAND COURT REPORTING 747 NORTH MAIN STREET 24 PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02904 25 (401)437-3366 0002 1 (THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENCED AT 9:30 A.m.) 2 MR. LOMBARDI: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. My name is Valentino Lombardi. I am 4 legal counsel for the Department of Labor and 5 Training. On behalf of the State Apprenticeship 6 Council most of the members are here. I'd like to 7 welcome you to this public hearing we have 8 conducted pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 9 4235B regarding the adoption of rules and 10 regulations by the State Apprenticeship Council. 11 The purpose of this public hearing is to 12 afford the opportunity for individuals or groups 13 to submit data, views, or arguments orally or in 14 writing concerning the proposed rules and 15 regulations which have been made available. We 16 have copies here, but they have been made 17 available to anyone who requested it from the 18 Department or they are also on-line through the 19 website. This is a process whereby the sector 20 deems it advisable that the Secretary of State 21 approve these proposed rules, and after comment is 22 taken, the SAC will then determine what, if any, 23 changes they would make in those proposals based 24 upon the comments received. And, in that regard, 25 that's why we're here today. Again, to listen to 0003 1 your comments. We have a stenographer to help 2 record these comments. And so that I ask when you 3 come forward, please come forward to this area, to 4 my left, your right, and so the stenographer can 5 hear you, and give your name to the stenographer, 6 who you represent, and then state your oral 7 presentation. 8 If you have a written presentation, we 9 will accept the written presentation also, and it 10 will be made part of the record. So, in any case, 11 we can get started at this time. Okay. I would 12 ask anyone who would like to make comment. Come 13 forward, sir. 14 MR. BAIRD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 15 members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen. My 16 name is Bob Baird. I'm with the Independent 17 Electrical Contractors Association, the National 18 Association for Reputable Contractors throughout 19 the United States, with over 3,000 member 20 companies. We are highly focused on the needs of 21 the industry and the work force needs of that 22 industry as it relates to the training of 23 apprentices. In addition to my day job, I also 24 have the privilege of serving on the Department of 25 Labor's Advisory Committee on apprenticeship. So 0004 1 it's claimed that I sleep and breathe 2 apprenticeship on a daily basis. I'm here today 3 because frankly I've been asked by IEC member 4 contractors that either live and reside here in 5 Rhode Island or work in Rhode Island from time to 6 time. And they are greatly concerned with the 7 impact these proposed regulations will have on 8 both their businesses and the welfare of their 9 apprentices and the overall economy of the State 10 of Rhode Island. 11 And, specifically, I rise to speak against 12 three specific aspects of the proposed revisions 13 of the regulations. They are encountered to the 14 expressed purpose of the regulations as described 15 in Section 2845-1, and are encountered to the 16 powers and duties of the Council as defined in 17 2845-3. And, again, negatively impact the 18 apprentices, the employers of small businesses, 19 and the consumer public, and ultimately the 20 economy. 21 First, in ratios, specifically 22 Section 5(b)(10), it is our understanding that 23 today electrical contractors are permitted to 24 employ a straight ratio of one apprentice to one 25 journeyman. The proposal and table imposes a job 0005 1 site ratio of one apprentice to one journeyman for 2 the first apprentice, and then a ratio of one 3 apprentice for each additional three journeymen. 4 This change flies directly in the face of both the 5 many needs of an industry crying for manpower and 6 the purpose of this Council to expand the 7 apprenticeship opportunities. 8 Specifically, we will see resulting 9 layoffs in apprentices that were originally 10 employed under the one-to-one ratio and could no 11 longer be utilized on the workshop, work site 12 because of the new one-to-three requirement. We 13 will see increasing financial burden on electrical 14 contractors as they seek to demand jobs that were 15 originally bid based on the one-to-one, and then 16 they can no longer man at that ratio. 17 Third, we will see increased cost 18 consumers as future jobs are bid and billed based 19 on the new higher ratio. And, lastly, this will 20 further restrict the number of individuals that 21 are able to enter the electrical apprenticeship 22 program and exacerbate the growing shortage of 23 electrical workers and restrict, frankly, 24 opportunities for the thousands of young people 25 this industry needs to attract. The U.S. 0006 1 Department of Labor and IEC have long recognized 2 the acceptability of a one-to-one ratio for many 3 years. The years of experienced prior contractors 4 have demonstrated their job site ratio of 5 one-to-one provides for a safe and effective 6 training environment for the good of consumers, 7 contractors, and apprentices and individuals 8 wishing to become apprentices. IEC urges the 9 Council to retain straight one-to-one ratios for 10 all categories of electricians: Residential, 11 commercial, and industrial. 12 Secondly, the definition that you have 13 established or proposing to establish for sponsor 14 negatively impacts reciprocity. Geography here in 15 the northeast makes it only natural that 16 electrical contractors from Rhode Island and 17 adjoining states tend to work in Rhode Island, 18 Massachusetts, and Connecticut, working solely in 19 their home states. Therefore, the proposed 20 requirement that program sponsors must have their 21 principal location within the State of Rhode 22 Island is unrealistic and severely limits the 23 degree to which states can establish reciprocal 24 recognition of each other's apprenticeship 25 programs, the ability of contractors to utilize 0007 1 apprentices, and as you will see demonstrated by 2 speakers later, the continued employability of 3 apprentices here in Rhode Island. 4 And, thirdly, I'd like to comment on the 5 Section 3(k) on the Suspension of Registration 6 After Violation. The proposed regulations 7 specifically state that the Council may suspend a 8 sponsor's registration for six months after a 9 determination of a violation. Frankly, we don't 10 believe this is the intent of the Council. It 11 does not provide the Council the flexibility to 12 provide lesser penalties for lesser violations. 13 It does not define what is meant by "notice" or 14 "hearing." There is no definition of the types of 15 violations that would lead to suspension and the 16 level of penalties that might be assessed. 17 There must be a fine structure defined 18 equating the violation to the penalty. This 19 entire section provides inadequate definition and 20 requires further work. We, therefore, request 21 that the Council carefully review each of the 22 proposed revisions of Rhode Island Apprenticeship 23 Regulations so as to address these concerns and 24 act to serve the best interest of apprentices, 25 contractors, and Rhode Island's business and 0008 1 consumer communities. Gentlemen, I thank you for 2 your attention. If you have any questions, I'm 3 prepared to receive them. 4 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Baird. You 5 have to leave that. Next, please. Sir. 6 MR. MANCINI: I have copies for all 7 members of the Council. I don't know where I 8 should leave them. 9 MR. LOMBARDI: On the table. 10 MR. MANCINI: My name is Greg Mancini. 11 I'm with Build Rhode Island. We're a labor 12 management partnership that is comprised of the 17 13 construction trade unions and with the 10,000 14 workers and approximately 500 signatory 15 contractors in Rhode Island and the local area. 16 Today we're here to speak on behalf of the unions 17 and also our contractors. At the outset we want 18 to commend the Council and their effort to update 19 these regulations, and we, too, have some 20 suggestions that we would like you to consider. 21 I'll be as brief as I can. But I'm going to go 22 through them one by one. 23 In Section 1(f), Rhode Island 24 Apprenticeship Sponsors, we do agree to endorse 25 the Council's proposal that apprenticeship program 0009 1 sponsors should be principally located within the 2 State of Rhode Island. We do think that they are 3 consistent with the statutory and stated public 4 policy purposes for the apprenticeship programs. 5 I think unless a program is local, it cannot be 6 properly monitored to be able to assess the 7 program's ability to have the appropriate capacity 8 in terms of operating a bona fide program; having 9 the appropriate facilities; having the appropriate 10 instructors and additional resources to provide 11 meaningful training and employment to apprentices. 12 In Section 3(k), we endorse the Council's 13 recommendation to have the authority to suspend an 14 apprenticeship registration after noticing a 15 hearing. We would suggest to you that you may 16 want to have an additional provision of up to 17 three years for egregious or intentional 18 violations of the law that allows you a little bit 19 more flexibility. There's a difference between a 20 sloppy mistake that causes a program to be 21 suspended versus an intentional mistake that is a 22 direct intent by persons who violate the law and 23 escape their responsibilities. 24 Next, in Section 510, Apprenticeship to 25 Journeymen ratios, as you know, in June of this 0010 1 past year, we suggested or we provided written 2 comment to the committee or Council to ask them to 3 assess and determine ratios based on the 4 individual quality of each particular program. 5 Such a review would include each program's 6 facilities, its curriculum, and the graduation 7 rates, and the overall quality of training 8 provided to apprentices. However, at the time, 9 the Council has rejected our proposal and has gone 10 with more across-the-board ratio based on each 11 individual craft. 12 We would suggest that you consider 13 across-the-board ratios for the industry at a 14 ratio of five-to-one. Under this standard, we 15 believe that the Council will ensure that all 16 construction crafts would have the higher 17 standards for proper safety, proper training, and 18 supervision so that apprentices can properly train 19 and the work force will be safer. 20 By the way, I know this Council deals with 21 a lot of apprenticeship trades outside of 22 construction, and that's why my comments are 23 strictly only for construction principals and 24 crafts. And some of our union crafts do have 25 different ratios; most of them have a five-to-one 0011 1 ratio. And it's been our experience that these 2 programs have the appropriate journeymen to 3 apprenticeship ratio. The five-to-one ratio 4 ensures that journeymen devote the appropriate 5 amount of time to training while at the same time 6 having a productive workday. This approach also 7 produces a safer work site, provides for proper 8 supervision, and ensures education, and promotes 9 consistent employment security; all key goals, key 10 and relevant goals to the public policy issue at 11 hand. 12 We have an exhibit that also demonstrates 13 that Rhode Island would not be the only State that 14 would have a five-to-one ratio. There are many 15 other states that do have a five-to-one ratio. 16 Accordingly, if this Council has decided to 17 promulgate journeymen/apprentice ratios in its 18 regulations that are not based on a particular 19 program's merits, we suggest the best mechanism to 20 achieve the goals is to promote a five-to-one 21 ratio. 22 Next, in Section 514, you have a reference 23 to a statute. Statute numbers 28-20-35. We 24 believe that that statute might have been 25 repealed, and we believe that the appropriate 0012 1 statute number that you want to refer to there is 2 37-23-1. And, again, that's in the notes I gave 3 you. 4 Reporting Requirements, Apprentice 5 Reporting Requirements in Section 5 also. The 6 Council is recommending that apprentices submit 7 weekly reports. We think that this is unduly 8 onerous and unrealistic. We believe it is a good 9 idea for apprentices to have reporting 10 requirements, and we suggest that they submit 11 their apprenticeship reporting requirements on a 12 monthly basis as opposed to a weekly basis. 13 Lastly, New Rules. At the end of your 14 chart, you've got some information relative to 15 prevailing wage projects. In part you read: 16 "In regard to prevailing wage projects, the 17 federal law mandates that the applicable 18 provisions of collective bargaining 19 agreements should be considered in 20 determining ratios; therefore, if the ratio 21 in a CBA is more favorable than the ratio 22 set by the SAC, the prevailing unit should 23 be, should use the CBA ratio for the specific 24 project involved. If the CBA is less 25 favorable, the SAC ratio will be maintained." 0013 1 To us, this rule is unclear. I'm not sure of what 2 you mean by prevailing wage projects, if it's 3 State and/or federal or if it's just federal. On 4 the definition of favorable, we're unclear also. 5 We think the language is little ambiguous. We 6 also think you may want to include an example as 7 to what favorable means. We have proposed some 8 language that says that the rules should simply 9 state that on prevailing wage projects, federal or 10 State, the ratios established by CBA's should 11 replace the ratios standard in the new regulation, 12 if the standard and the CBA provides a greater 13 ratio than that provided in the regulation. And 14 then maybe give an example of what it means by 15 greater. 16 Those are really all the comments I have. 17 Again, I've got written commentary along with one 18 exhibit. And if anyone has some questions, I'll 19 be more than happy to take your questions. 20 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Mancini. 21 MR. PEREZ: Good morning, ladies and 22 gentlemen. My name is Eric, and I am currently 23 employed with the Interstate Electric. 24 MR. LOMBARDI: Give your full name and who 25 you are representing, and then make your comments. 0014 1 MR. PEREZ: Eric Perez. I work for 2 Interstate Electric Services. My comments are 3 about the ratios is just that, for myself, I'm 4 working out in the field. And I found, I find it 5 better to work one-to-one than five-to-one. The 6 reason why is because five-to-one, you're going to 7 have five guys looking over you. You won't be 8 able to work as proper as one-to-one. I've been 9 working one-to-one since I started, and I learned 10 more, I guess, than if I worked five-to-one. 11 You're going to have five guys taking care 12 of one apprentice. But the other four are 13 somewhere else. One is going to be with you. The 14 other four are going to be out there. So I don't 15 find that -- you know -- another thing is about 16 the -- oh, what's the other? I'm sorry. I'm kind 17 of nervous. I'm sorry. What was the other -- if 18 you guys could refresh my mind. There was the 19 ratios. Oh, and about the weekly basis. I've 20 been doing that every month and getting that 21 signed every month by my foreman to you guys every 22 month. Like I put in every month every day what I 23 do. How many hours. I think that by doing that 24 on a weekly basis and having that like five years 25 is too much for me. I don't know how much work it 0015 1 will be for the company also. And I can just 2 think that it's, you know, it's not right to have 3 five-to-one. Also if it's five-to-one, you're 4 going to have a lot of apprentices out there 5 without a job. I believe that it's going to 6 increase more of a violence for other kids that 7 wants to become apprentices that can't be able to 8 because of the ratio. It's better, you know, it's 9 better for us to just keep it one-to-one. That's 10 all I got to say. Thank you. 11 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Perez. 12 Next. Ma'am. 13 MS. KENT: Good morning. My name is Lynn 14 Kent, and I am the Chief Financial Officer of 15 Robert F. Audet Inc. We are located in East 16 Greenwich, Rhode Island, and we represent one of 17 the approximately 80 percent of the construction 18 work force in Rhode Island that is merit shop. I 19 would like to address a number of significant 20 problems created by the proposed Apprenticeship 21 Council regulations. Just as insight, I have my 22 testimony in writing so I would be happy to 23 submit. 24 My comments are aimed at practical 25 problems rather than legal deficiencies. Our 0016 1 attorneys had been studying the issues of 2 statutory and regulatory authority, and they will 3 be commenting separately. I will focus on 4 operational issues for small businesses such as 5 Audet. 6 Record keeping, Section 5(b)(26) of the 7 proposed regulation creates unduly burdensome 8 record keeping requirements. The proposed 9 regulations require the employer to obtain and 10 keep weekly reports of both work completed and 11 classes attended. These records must be 12 maintained for five years. Currently, apprentices 13 keep their own records. This is efficient. 14 Apprentices know both the work they have performed 15 and the classes that they have attended. Also an 16 apprentice may work for several companies during 17 the course of their apprenticeship. Therefore, 18 the individual apprentice is in the best position 19 to maintain his or her records. 20 Perhaps companies with large 21 administrative staffs can maintain these records. 22 But there is no way that Robert F. Audet Inc., or 23 similar size companies can do this without 24 increasing their overhead. This proposed shifting 25 of record keeping responsibilities from the 0017 1 apprentice to the employer is ill-advised. It 2 will impose an economic burden on small business. 3 In addition, requiring employer to maintain 4 records submitted by apprentices is a duplication 5 of effort with no clear benefit. It opens up 6 opportunities for clerical errors. It also 7 provided a needless avenue of dispute over records 8 control. 9 For example, in the event an apprentice 10 leaves the employ of a sponsor, what rules will 11 govern the timely transfer of these records to the 12 apprentice? Record keeping responsibilities 13 should remain with the benefitting party, the 14 apprentice. We urge the Council to reject this 15 proposed approach. 16 Our second point is that the proposed 17 regulations create a two-year "up or out" system 18 in Section 6(b)(27). Apprentices must become 19 licensed in their trade within two years of 20 completing their apprenticeship. Failing to 21 accomplish this, the apprentice will have to 22 submit a written extension request to the 23 Apprenticeship Council for approval or be 24 terminated. Licensed contractors, such as 25 electricians, cannot use individuals who are 0018 1 neither journeymen nor apprentices. This proposal 2 thus ignores the realities of work. It creates an 3 additional administrative burden on the 4 Apprenticeship Council. Specifically: Many 5 individuals are not ready to pass the test after 6 two years and need more time. Does failure on an 7 exam equal termination of employment? Will 8 apprentices be able to work during the extension 9 request process? If they can't, this represents 10 an economic hardship to the employee and, in turn, 11 the employer. This will create one more hurdle 12 for the apprentice and additional work for the 13 Council. 14 Also this regulation will likely have an 15 adverse impact on minorities. We all know that 16 many of these individuals do not complete their 17 apprenticeship programs within the same time frame 18 as other employees. Additionally, they often have 19 more difficulty passing licensing exams. It is 20 clear that this proposed regulation will make it 21 harder for minorities to enter the trade and 22 become licensed. 23 We also recognize the need not only for 24 minorities but for more women to learn skilled 25 trades. Similarly, this proposal will have an 0019 1 adverse impact on women. Our experience is that 2 many female apprentices need longer than two years 3 to deal with family responsibilities. This two 4 years or out rule makes it harder for women to 5 become electricians. And if, in theory, women 6 will be granted extensions by the Council, 7 wouldn't this be discriminatory to men? Our goal 8 here is to get women, minorities, and all 9 apprentices licensed, not play "Beat the Clock." 10 Thirdly, we also object to the punitive 11 suspension provisions of the proposed 12 Section 3(k). It gives greater power to the 13 Council. We are concerned about its 14 implementation and administration. It seems there 15 are multiple problems here. The standard is 16 vague. What does federal or State labor program 17 requirement mean? Does this mean an on-site 18 violation of ratio rules? A failure to keep 19 proper records on a weekly basis? A violation of 20 prevailing wage law? A violation of the National 21 Labor Relations Act? This rule is so vague that 22 it offers no meaningful guidelines. Instead, it 23 instills confusion in employers and apprentices 24 and results in, yet again, additional work for the 25 Council. The potential for abuse here is great. 0020 1 Since union companies are not program sponsors, 2 the target of this suspension rule can only be 3 merit shops. This is a clear equal protection 4 violation under the United States and Rhode Island 5 Constitutions. 6 This proposal delegates rights to the 7 Apprenticeship Council which we do not believe the 8 legislature envisioned. This is a problematic 9 and potentially illegal regulation. And there is 10 insufficient legislative authority for this rule. 11 Fourthly, we object to the expansion of a 12 Council's jurisdiction from skilled trades to 13 occupations. Under the law, the Council may 14 regulate apprentice programs for apprenticeable 15 occupations. This statute goes on to define this 16 as meaning the skilled trades. Yet these proposed 17 regulations drop the reference to trades and 18 substitute the word occupations. This is an 19 unwarranted expansion of the Council's 20 jurisdiction into occupations other than skilled 21 trades. 22 A good example of this is to attempt to 23 regulate the unlicensed trades. At Audet we 24 employ licensed electricians. However, many of 25 the companies we work with employ bricklayers, 0021 1 carpenters, laborers, and painters. These are 2 unlicensed trades involving different and lesser 3 skills than electricians. We believe it is highly 4 improper for the Apprenticeship Council to try to 5 expand its authority. 6 Fifthly and finally, I want to talk about 7 job site ratios. In the electrical trades, the 8 ratio for non-prevailing wage commercial work has 9 been one-to-one as far back as anyone at our 10 company can recall. Additionally, we now work 11 one-to-one ratio on prevailing wage projects. 12 This ratio works. If it ain't broke, why are we 13 trying to fix it? Specifically, there has been no 14 evidence submitted to the Council that a 15 one-to-one job site ratio is problematic from a 16 safety, training, or supervision standpoint. 17 While witnesses stated conclusions and 18 feelings about these issues, no real evidence was 19 produced. There is no factual basis for believing 20 that anything greater than a one-to-one ratio is 21 required. No statistics as to injuries nor 22 evidence concerning training was received by the 23 Council which would warrant changing the 24 one-to-one ratio that has long been in effect. If 25 we think about it, how would a multiple ratio 0022 1 work? Three journeymen don't train an apprentice. 2 An apprentice works with and under the supervision 3 of one journeyman. The other two required 4 journeymen are simply added cost with no proven 5 benefit. There is no such thing as on the job 6 teaching. 7 The sufficiency of a one-to-one ratio for 8 all work is also clear from our sister states. In 9 Massachusetts, the apprentice to journeyman ratio 10 on site is one-to-one. In New Hampshire, it is 11 one-to-one for the first five apprentices, meaning 12 that there can be five apprentices and five 13 journeymen on the job site. In Vermont, the ratio 14 is one-to-one for the first four apprentices. In 15 Connecticut, the ratio is one-to-one on the job 16 site. Why should Rhode Island have a more 17 stringent ratio requirement? Why should the 18 taxpayers of Rhode Island bear the burden of these 19 unnecessary ratios? 20 Higher journeymen to apprentice ratios 21 will curtail job and training opportunities for 22 apprentices. While unions may be dedicated to 23 providing the most work for their journeymen, the 24 goal of apprenticeship programs is to encourage 25 more young people, women, and minorities to enter 0023 1 the skilled trades. Higher ratios work against 2 this goal. It is interesting to note that in some 3 cases the legislature has mandated ratios by law. 4 The legislature has provided for a one-to-one 5 ratio for journey person oil burning electricians, 6 journey person alarm electricians, master alarm 7 electricians, master oil burning electricians, 8 plumbers and others. If in these highly skilled 9 trades a one-to-one ratio is satisfactory for 10 commercial, residential, and prevailing wage 11 projects, why should the ratio for electricians be 12 higher? 13 There is no demonstrated need for higher 14 ratios and the Council has heard no relevant 15 evidence. The impact of ratios other than 16 one-to-one on small businesses is clear. Small 17 electrical contractors will have increased 18 difficulty utilizing apprentices if the ratios 19 change. Service companies will have difficulties 20 properly staffing service trucks. For example, if 21 trucks are staffed with one journey person and one 22 apprentice, imagine if two trucks converge on the 23 same location for service, there is then a 24 two-to-two ratio, which would be illegal under 25 these regulations. Finally, the cost of 0024 1 construction in Rhode Island will increase as 2 ratios go up. The cost of labor is an important 3 factor in any construction project. Mandating 4 more journeymen and fewer apprentices, the cost of 5 new construction, renovations, and repairs will 6 increase with no apparent gain in safety or 7 training. At every turn in Rhode Island there are 8 regulations that make it harder to do business. 9 No wonder the economy in our State is in such bad 10 shape. Higher ratios only add to this problem. 11 I ask the Council to remember that 12 apprenticeships in Rhode Island provide 13 opportunities for good paying careers that cannot 14 be exported. The economic health of the State and 15 its citizens depends on providing these 16 opportunities for everyone. And on balance these 17 regulations have not been well thought out. The 18 proposed regulations disregard the labor shortage 19 problems that the Department's own presentation in 20 May exposed. The proposed regulations are the 21 wrong fix for the current problems and should be 22 rejected by the Council. Thank you for your 23 consideration. 24 MR. LOMABARDI: Thank you, Ms. Kent. 25 Next, please. Sir. 0025 1 MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 2 Chairpeople. My name is Eric Anderson, and I'm 3 with the Rhode Island Associated General 4 Contractors. I'm with the five-to-one. Here is 5 where I'm coming from. Most of the people that I 6 represent build large projects; 20 million, 30 7 million, 40 million, 50 million, and more. So 8 production is and safety becomes very important. 9 So what I want to talk about is five-to-one for a 10 ratio because it works. Safety. Production, 11 teamwork, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training. 12 Most apprenticeship programs have a 13 certain amount of schoolwork, and for the most 14 part, it is on-the-job training. And apprentices 15 have to be worked into an on-site job routine in 16 such a way that they can learn safely and pick up 17 the skills of the craft. And it doesn't matter 18 how big the job is or where it is. This works and 19 it has worked for a long period of time and that's 20 why it's maintained by collective bargaining 21 agreements. 22 So let's take a look at a big job saying 23 that it's a $25 million school. And then look at 24 one wall of the gymnasium, 200 feet long, 20 feet 25 high. There's may be 20 bricklayers there. Four 0026 1 of the bricklayers are journey people. It is the 2 same number of laborers with the same ratio. And 3 that team has to put out approximately 450 bricks 4 in place for every person every day. Now, an 5 apprentice can't keep up with 450 bricks a day. 6 They don't have the skill for that. 7 So if they had a one-to-one ratio, we 8 wouldn't make the rate. If they had a 9 one-to-three ratio, we wouldn't make the rate. 10 The job would fall behind schedule. The job would 11 cost too much money. One-to-five seems to work. 12 That's why we do it. It's worked for a long time 13 because the apprentice gets trained, the 14 production rate is maintained through teamwork, 15 and the job remains safe. So five-to-one, safety, 16 production, teamwork, apprenticeship on-the-job 17 training. Thank you. 18 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 19 MR. ANDERSON: You're welcome. 20 MR. FOSTER: Good morning. My name is 21 Douglas Foster, and I'm general manager of Petro 22 Holdings in Rhode Island. The reason that I am 23 here today is because I am concerned about your 24 intent of Section 2, Subsection F. It states that 25 a sponsor means any person, firm, association, 0027 1 committee, organization, or corporation that is 2 principally located within the State of Rhode 3 Island. The reason that I am concerned is I don't 4 know how you're defining the word "principally." 5 Petro Holdings, our parents company, is a 6 Minnesota corporation. However, Petro has offices 7 in Providence, Warwick, Woonsocket, Tiverton, East 8 Greenwich, and we employee over 200 people at 9 these locations. At the present time, we have 16 10 people under the apprenticeship program. 11 If your intent is that principally means 12 because Petrol Holdings is a Minnesota 13 corporation, we wouldn't be allowed to participate 14 in an apprenticeship program, this could create 15 hardship for our service technicians and our 16 customers. However, if you recognize the 17 locations we have in Rhode Island, with Providence 18 being our principal location, then we can 19 participate. All the technicians in the 20 apprenticeship program belong to Teamsters Local 21 251, and there is a section in the collective 22 bargaining agreement that gives them additional 23 monies for each license they hold. Therefore, if 24 you rule that we are a Minnesota corporation and 25 thus can't be in the apprenticeship program, none 0028 1 of our technicians will be able to upgrade their 2 licenses and will have no chance at additional 3 monies available to them under the collective 4 bargaining agreement. I certainly understand the 5 Council's intent on keeping jobs in Rhode Island 6 first, and I'm in total agreement with this. 7 However, I don't think the intent is to prevent 8 employees who live and work in Rhode Island from 9 being able to upgrade their licenses and earn 10 additional income. 11 One solution I recommend is if you 12 determine a company not to be principally located 13 in Rhode Island because a corporate office is in 14 another state, that you at least grandfather 15 companies that are presently in the apprenticeship 16 program. Thank you very much for the opportunity 17 to speak before you. 18 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you. Anyone else? 19 Sir. 20 MR. JANTON: Hello, my name is Jeffrey 21 Janton. And I'm with M & L Power Service in 22 Warwick, Rhode Island. Let's talk about the ratio 23 first. On the three-to-one ratio, the five-to-one 24 ratio. We do a multitude of large projects 25 consisting of a lot of manpower. And on a 0029 1 five-to-one ratio or a three-to-one ratio, what's 2 going to end up happening with the apprentice is 3 he's going to have to take care of five guys. 4 This guy is going to take the fixtures upstairs. 5 This guy screaming he needs wires. This guy 6 screaming he needs connectors. And you got this 7 guy screaming, "Go get me coffee." This kid is 8 going to get trained under five electricians. He 9 is not. I mean, he's just going to be used as a 10 caddy. He 's going to have three thousand feet of 11 pipe brought up to the fourth floor. I feel bad 12 for this poor kid. What do I got to do? I got to 13 hire ten electricians to tell the kid to carry 14 that pipe up? Or if I have 6,000 fixtures going 15 on this job site and I got three tractor trailer 16 trucks coming in. I got one apprentice to unload 17 this. I got to put ten guys on to watch him 18 unload it? One-to-one has worked. It's always 19 worked here. Let's keep it that way, you know. 20 As far as safety goes, nobody's come up 21 with a safety issue. One-to-one has been fine. I 22 mean, as you know my brother passed away. He was 23 out there working with another electrician. It 24 was one-to-one. I mean, to have only one guy out 25 in the bumper truck. Two-to-one only takes place 0030 1 when there's a team. You need a team of people. 2 Also the average age of a construction worker 3 today in the electrical industry has gone up from 4 48 from the last time we talked and now it's 50. 5 So we're going to train less apprentices. We are 6 going to have no work force if we implement this 7 years down the road. 8 I mean, right now we're saying, "Oh, yeah. 9 Everybody thinks about the kids." Well, let's 10 think about the children. Let's think about 11 getting all these guys in the program. What's 12 going to happen to all these kids getting out of 13 high school who are going to stick between the 14 curbs? They're not going to have a chance to get 15 into the field because they are not going to have 16 the opportunity. There are just not going to be 17 enough job openings for apprentices. 18 I have seven apprentices right now with 19 like 14 electricians. But -- and one-to-one would 20 just totally -- five-to-one would just totally 21 throw this thing all off track. We'd be -- I'm 22 telling you if we implemented this, I would say in 23 three to five years -- look in Sunday's paper. 24 There had to be ten ads in there for electricians. 25 We have a shortage as it is now. And you want to 0031 1 create more of a shortage? I don't believe that's 2 correct. All right. That's my issue on the 3 ratio. Let's talk about the record keeping. I 4 mean, I run a full-time office. I have an office 5 manager, bookkeeper, secretary, my secretary, 6 personal assistant. 7 Now, I'm going to tell you the things that 8 happen. We are going to keep these records. 9 Every time an apprentice changes jobs -- you know, 10 this could be a disgruntled employee. He leaves 11 me. Three days later he calls up, "Oh, I'm going 12 for my license. I need my hours." Well, where's 13 your hours? You're supposed to keep track of 14 them. Where's your book? Well, he doesn't have 15 that either. 16 So now I have to send my people down there 17 to payroll records, right down into the archives, 18 dig up this man's payroll, bring it out, take 19 copies of it all, and ship it over here to make 20 sure that they get it. This is just one instance. 21 Now, if we implement this by every week, you can 22 see the situation that we're going to fall into. 23 We'll fall into a bookkeeping nightmare. It is 24 already a bookkeeping nightmare. And by saying 25 that the -- what do you find so funny? Why should 0032 1 we be laughing? 2 MR. LOMBARDI: Gentlemen. Make your 3 statement. No comments from the audience, not 4 until it is time for you to come up here and make 5 your comments to the entire Board. You may 6 continue, Mr. Janton. 7 MR. JANTON: Thank you. It's already 8 enough burden here. We are having a tough time 9 making it in Rhode Island as it is, with workman's 10 comp, with the health care systems that we have a 11 problem with in here. Let's just throw another 12 one in. Let's just keep it going. Finally, I'm 13 telling you, we're just going to go right over the 14 edge. That's where we're driving, and that's what 15 we're going to do. We're just going to drive 16 companies out of business, people are just going 17 to get tired, or they're going to relocate to 18 another area. 19 If any of this gets implemented, believe 20 me, I am moving to Massachusetts. I'm taking my 21 20 something guys or 30 guys and we're going to be 22 out of here. So that's less money that's going to 23 be made here. You'll have less apprentices. It's 24 going to be less money for everybody right around 25 the board. So if you guys are good -- if we're 0033 1 good businessmen, a businessman wants to stay in 2 business, it's doing the right thing. Thank you. 3 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Janton. 4 Sir. 5 MR. BURN: My name is Tim Burn. I 6 represent plumbers and pipe fitters in the United 7 Association. We want to speak on the one-to-five 8 ratio. For a hundred years the United Association 9 has been training apprentices in the plumbing and 10 in the pipe fitting industry. We've used the 11 one-to-five. We feel that one-to-five works. We 12 give 246 hours of classroom instruction for a year 13 to each apprentice, and that's only the tip of his 14 education. We feel -- that probably represents 20 15 to 25 percent. The remaining is going to be 16 on-the-job training. 17 Working with five different journeymen, 18 the apprentice gets an all around view of our 19 trade. Our trade is so vast, whether you're doing 20 service on boilers or whether you're installing 21 two or three million BTU boilers. There is so 22 much to our business you cannot learn from one 23 person who is focused on one item. So we feel 24 that a cross section of journeymen will provide a 25 much better education. It provides a safety 0034 1 factor for the apprentice who has not had the 2 experience, who may not be as trained in many 3 aspects. Remember, we do a lot of large work. 4 And in a lot of large work, it provides a great 5 safety risk. Having a trained journeyman to 6 oversee the apprenticeship just provides for a 7 much rounded apprentice, we feel. It provides for 8 a safer job, and it provides a much better product 9 for the end user and the customer, which is really 10 what we're after. We need to keep those people 11 happy, our customer -- our contractors need to 12 keep them happy, and we just feel that that 13 customer wants to get this job done, not training, 14 spend too much time training that apprentice. 15 So we promote the one-to-five. We hope 16 the Council will promote the one-to-five for 17 mechanical trades. And if there's any questions, 18 we're always available for this Council's request. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Burn. Sir. 21 MR. MARTINEZ: My name is George Martinez. 22 I'm an apprentice for Ronco Electric. And I'm 23 here just to make a brief statement. I'm 24 basically concerned about the ratio, which I'm -- 25 I feel that it will put me out of work. I was 0035 1 employed for 15 years as an electronic technician 2 here in the State of Rhode Island. And due to the 3 fact that, you know, most of the middle standard 4 equipment business has moved away from Rhode 5 Island, which made it a lot slower for me to 6 maintain my family and keep my kids in college. 7 I was able to be employed by a company, 8 Ronco Electric in Massachusetts, and right now I'm 9 in the apprenticeship program, which I -- after 10 reading and understanding what the ratio is going 11 to be, I'm more concerned of probably getting 12 pushed out and maybe moving on to another position 13 and trying to keep my family going. So, 14 basically, the reason why I'm here is I just would 15 like to keep it the way it is right now so I can 16 probably have an opportunity and keep somebody 17 like me who probably will do the same thing. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. 20 Sir. 21 MR. IZZI: My name is Dominic Izzi. I'm 22 the New England regional apprentice coordinator 23 for construction laborers. I'd like to talk a 24 little bit about ratios. The laborer's union is 25 very much in favor of the one-to-five ratio. As a 0036 1 construction laborer, we perform many different 2 tasks on a construction project. By having a 3 one-to-five ratio, the apprentices will be exposed 4 to three, four, possibly five different functions 5 that will be performed on a particular project. 6 So we feel that the apprentices are going to be 7 well-rounded and very well trained by working with 8 various journey workers on those particular 9 projects. 10 Also we are concerned about changing the 11 ratio to one-to-one. I think productivity is 12 going to drop dramatically. We are also going to 13 be replacing the journeyman worker that is 14 required to be skilled. So I think a one-to-five 15 ratio is going to be good for everyone. I think 16 it's good for the laborers, obviously. And I 17 think we should maintain that particular ratio. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Izzi. Sir. 20 MR. CAMERON: Good morning. My name is 21 Stanley Cameron. I'm a member of -- a general 22 member of ABC, and a family member of the AMC of 23 New England. I would like to speak to Section 5, 24 Standards of Apprenticeship, Paragraph 27. This 25 section alludes to an apprentice moving up and 0037 1 out. We believe this is insensitive and inhumane 2 to those apprentices who are gainfully employed 3 and are working towards their journeyman's status, 4 however long it takes. Most apprenticeship 5 programs that I know of are longer than two years. 6 So I think that that should be reviewed. The 7 ruling would disrupt the contractor work force by 8 forcing employers to lay off or fire valuable and 9 reliable workers if they do not become journeymen 10 at the end of two years. Minority contractors are 11 quite concerned about this ruling and feel they 12 will be disproportionately affected, which may 13 contribute to the loss of work in the minority 14 community, already more than twice the employment 15 rate. 16 I also want to speak to Appendix A, which 17 accompanies Proposed Rules and Regulations. The 18 job site ratio for licensed indentured trades 19 range from one-to-one and one-to-three. The 20 higher ratio in this licensed category has some 21 concern among the ABC and the AMC numbers. We 22 feel the one-to-one should prevail throughout the 23 licensed trades. This sentiment has been 24 expressed and is a matter of record from past 25 hearings. But beyond any logic is a proposed 0038 1 ratio for unlicensed trades, which is suggested as 2 high as one apprentice to five journeymen. This 3 is unnecessary, especially in the light of the 4 ratio for unlicensed trades in the residential and 5 manufacturing sectors, proposed this one-to-one. 6 The AMC and ABC recommends the one-to-one 7 ratio for all sectors and all trades. The 8 one-to-one ratio has many benefits. Pairing is a 9 basic common factor in assembling a crew. It 10 makes economical sense. Supervision is better. 11 Mentoring is established. Safety is ensured. And 12 the younger as well as the minority work force is 13 generated at a faster rate to meet future demands. 14 So, in conclusion, I'm here to support an educated 15 work force and the one-to-one ratio. 16 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. 17 MR. BOEBINGER: Good morning. My name is 18 Mike Boeginger. I represent Cintas Fire 19 Protection. I have two or three areas that I 20 would like to talk about. One of them is on the 21 one-to-one ratio. We've heard a lot about it in 22 the electrical industry. We also are concerned 23 about that from a fire suppression/fire protection 24 industry. We realistically use one-to-one 25 training. We don't have three people training. 0039 1 In terms of did I get exposure to multiple aspects 2 of the job, multiple techniques, absolutely. We 3 mix up our journeymen with our apprentices so that 4 they have exposure. Realistically on the job 5 site, five people are not training them at once. 6 It is a one-to-one model. 7 As far as safety goes, what I find is that 8 a person asking questions of the journeymen, of 9 their master, challenge them on why they are doing 10 something a certain way. Why are you doing it 11 that way? Wait, that doesn't look right. You get 12 into your habits, into your ways. I'm not saying 13 you're cutting corners. But you do things out of 14 road. And you may forget some of the training 15 that you had 15, 20, 30 years ago. Having 16 somebody new on the job site actually helps 17 re-enforce the safety aspects of it. Can I prove 18 it statistically? No. Have I heard anybody else 19 prove that five-to-one is better? No. 20 My issues as far as worker's comp don't 21 have any dispirited impact whether it's a 22 journeyman, whether it's a master electrician, or 23 whether it's an apprentice. So from a safety 24 perspective, I see no evidence except in clerical 25 data that suggests that one-to-one is as effective 0040 1 as one-to-five. Safety is the mindset of a 2 company, with people working at it, whether 3 they're an apprentice, a journeyman, or a master. 4 The other thing I'm concerned about is the 5 aging of our work force. In the next five to ten 6 years, I will lose between 50 to 60 percent of my 7 licensed work force. For me to be able to replace 8 that, cannot do that with anything other than the 9 one-to-one ratio. Or else, we'll end up having 10 the burden of trying to hire licensed employees, 11 and there just won't be any in the work force 12 when we're looking five to ten years out. 13 I have a number of articles here that are 14 from -- going back as far as three years, and 15 geographically, may not be located here. It 16 suggests that this is a real phenomenon, the aging 17 of the work force and being able to train. In 18 addition, your own work states that that is a 19 concern going forward. So I think that is 20 something you need to consider when you're 21 evaluating the impact of the ratios and whether 22 one-to-one, one-to-three, or one-to-five will do 23 in terms of ability of qualified trained work 24 force in the beginning or in the next five to ten 25 years. 0041 1 The last thing I want to talk about, we've 2 heard also is Section 2(f), principally located. 3 Cintas, like many other companies, is a national 4 corporation. It brings all the benefits in terms 5 of training, education, stability that a national 6 corporation does. And if principally located 7 means that our Chairman of the Board, our CFO, our 8 President needs to be located in Rhode Island, I 9 think you're restricting a large benefit of what a 10 large corporation brings. 11 We have a location in Pawtucket, Rhode 12 Island; that's where I'm located. As far as 13 availability of facilities, training, all of that, 14 as a branch location we have all of that available 15 to us. It does not matter that our corporation, a 16 $3.2 billion corporation isn't located in Rhode 17 Island. I'm bringing sales and use tax, real 18 estate tax, all of that to the State. We have the 19 facilities available to provide that, and we take 20 our apprenticeship program as seriously as a 21 corporation that is exclusively located in Rhode 22 Island. 23 So I'm not sure what the intent is. I'm 24 just sharing my opinion that if the corporation 25 isn't based in Rhode Island, it shouldn't be 0042 1 restricted from a program as long as they're 2 registered in Rhode Island, have a location that 3 is an operating facility out of Rhode Island. 4 They should still be allowed to have the 5 apprenticeship program. So I appreciate your 6 time. Thank you for considering my opinion. 7 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Boebinger. 8 In the back, please. 9 MS. MCGARAHAN: My name Patty McGarahan 10 from National Refrigeration. And two concerns 11 that I have have to do with this, one is the ratio 12 like everyone else. I have found that on job 13 sites when it is one-to-five that the apprentice 14 ends up more a gofer. When it is one-to-one, it 15 is more like a mentoring program. I am 16 responsible office paperwork wise for the 17 apprentices, and I consider most of the 18 apprentices as my children. Most of them are in 19 their 20s, the same age as my own children, and I 20 find the journeymen that are working with these 21 guys are almost taking on a father type approach 22 with them. 23 And when they're testing, we're as nervous 24 as the guys that are having the test. And I think 25 that kind of approach to training is much better 0043 1 than having them having five people telling to 2 them to go to the truck, get this, get that. I 3 don't think they're learning what they could learn 4 from that. 5 The second point that I have a very big 6 concern about is the time frame where they could 7 lose their apprenticeship in they don't pass. I 8 have one gentleman in particular who is absolutely 9 fabulous. He's as good as many of the journeymen 10 on the field. He's been doing this for years. 11 The first test he took to get his journeyman's 12 license he missed by one question. He gets 13 himself so worked up that every time he tests he 14 drops 20 points. So it's to the point where for 15 him to lose his license for that when he is better 16 than some of my journeymen out in the field does 17 not seem fair. 18 I've have wonderful response from the 19 Department of Labor. They've actually brought me 20 packets and things to work with him to try to get 21 him so that he doesn't have this strong fear of 22 testing. But I don't think that someone who tests 23 poorly should lose their licenses and not have an 24 opportunity to be trained. Thank you. 25 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you. Yes, sir. 0044 1 MR. AURECCHIA: Hi. My name is Ken 2 Aurecchia. I'm the business manager of Local 51. 3 I'm also international Vice President of the UA 4 with 300,000 members. The one-to-five ratio works 5 and I'll tell you why. I have a school of 150 6 apprentices. I have 19 instructors. I do days. 7 I do nights. I have great journeymen, okay. I 8 have never had one of my guys not pass the test. 9 Why? Because they do 246 hours a year. They are 10 properly trained. And they get the proper 11 training. 12 I've heard people say, "Well, they don't 13 pass the test." Or, "They're in limbo." Nobody 14 in 51 is in limbo. You come out of your time, 15 you're certified. If you're a pipe fitter, if 16 you're a plumber, you're certified medical gas, 17 you're certified in rigging, you got the whole 18 nine yards. There's nobody that comes down here 19 if you are properly trained and put the hours in 20 that you won't pass the test. If there's a 21 problem with your people not passing the test, 22 you're not training them, okay. 23 So that's why the one-to-five ratio is 24 good. Because when I was a foreman in the field 25 and I had an apprentice, I moved him from floor to 0045 1 floor, from guy to guy so he knew what to do. And 2 if you don't do that, that's why they're not 3 passing the test. And the other reason is that 4 they're not getting the proper training. So if 5 you're not properly training them and don't put 6 the time and effort in and don't have the 7 instructors, it cost me and my association over a 8 million five a year to run this program. And my 9 members pay for it. And it's a great program. I 10 would like to see anybody come down and look at 11 it. People have come down such as the, the 12 President of CCRI. He was amazed. We have 28 13 welding booths. We have the best instructors. 14 All of our instructors go to college one week a 15 year. They all get certified. And the problem is 16 is you're not getting the proper training because 17 you don't have the right program. 18 I would put any union guy up against any 19 non-union guy at any time who gets the proper 20 training. 21 MR. JANTON: Do we need this? 22 MR. AURECCHIA: Look, I got the floor. I 23 got the floor. 24 MR. LOMBARDI: Gentlemen. 25 MR. AURECCHIA: All right? And I also 0046 1 feel as though the Board sitting here should be 2 allowed to ask questions for the simple reason 3 they are the Board. I sit on a lot of boards and 4 committees and the board and committee is always 5 allowed to question somebody. I never seen it 6 when they weren't. So those are my comments. 7 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Aurecchia. 8 Anyone else who would like to make -- 9 MS. GILL: Good morning, gentlemen, 10 Cynthia. My name is Julie Gill. I'm here as 11 Acting Executive Director of the Oil Heat 12 Institute. And I'm here on behalf of my oil 13 dealer members. There are several areas of 14 concern to the Oil Heat Institute regarding 15 changes to the Apprenticeship Council's rules and 16 regs that were recently revised. 17 For a very long time, the oil industry, 18 which comes under the Mechanical Board, has had a 19 shortage of oil heat technicians. We are finally 20 on the right track. Changes in the apprenticeship 21 ratios to the current one-to-one and a fairly new 22 curriculum are helping to diminish the shortage of 23 well-trained technicians. The areas of concern to 24 us are as follows and I'll read in chronological 25 order rather than in order of importance. Under 0047 1 Section 2(f), the word "principally" needs to be 2 deleted or more clearly defined. If the meaning 3 of principal is intended to prevent companies who 4 have a location in Rhode Island but pay taxes to 5 the State as a foreign corporation from 6 participating in the program, it is unacceptable. 7 We have oil dealers that began in this 8 State as many as 100 years ago that have been sold 9 but have maintained offices in this State. Their 10 employees live here and work here. These 11 companies have had long-standing apprenticeship 12 programs. Refusing to allow them to participate 13 would place a hardship on the apprenticeships 14 themselves and an additional hardship on the oil 15 industry itself by again creating a shortage of 16 trained oil heat technicians. 17 Under Section 3(k), violating any federal 18 or State labor law requirement is not defined well 19 enough. A company should not have their 20 apprenticeship sponsorship revoked if an 21 infraction is minor. Keep in mind that an 22 apprentice employee who may be quite innocent will 23 be the one who will suffer the most in the event 24 of a suspension. Under Section 5(b)(26), most 25 companies here are small businesses who have 0048 1 local, State, and federal paperwork requirements 2 enough to simply give up and go out of business. 3 It has been and should continue to be the 4 responsibility of the employee, not the sponsor, 5 to do record keeping, especially when the record 6 keeping is duplicated. 7 Under Section 5(b)(27), we believe that 8 the maximum of two years apprenticeship with only 9 another possible two years is unfair to those in 10 minority situations or who for a valid reason are 11 unable to complete the terms of the apprenticeship 12 agreement. And it also affects those who may have 13 learning disabilities but who are very bright in 14 working in this field. It can also cause a 15 problem if the person who was an apprentice left 16 the career for a length of time and then decided 17 to return to that career. What do we do with 18 those people? 19 We are very concerned, although it doesn't 20 impact us directly at the moment, we are very 21 concerned that the Council may have exceeded its 22 authority by changing apprenticeable trades to 23 occupations. And I would like to add one further 24 item here, and that is that one size doesn't fit 25 all. We have very large companies doing business 0049 1 in this State, and we have very small companies 2 doing business in this State. And I'll give an 3 example, outside of the Oil Heat Institute, my 4 son-in-law owns a construction company on Block 5 Island. He has a terrible time trying to get 6 employees over there. If you try to do this 7 apprenticeship ratio, small businesses will not be 8 able to hire employees. They are going to go out 9 of business. Large companies that can afford big 10 ratios, the law is not preventing them from doing 11 that, if they so desire. But small companies are 12 fighting for their lives. These types of changes 13 could literally put many of these companies out of 14 business. And I thank you for your time. 15 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you. 16 MS. POWERS: Good morning. My name is Ann 17 Powers. I'm President and CEO of American 18 Tele-Connect Services. We are a small family 19 owned company. We employee between 18 and 25 20 employees. I think we're probably pretty typical 21 of the average employer in Rhode Island. We sell 22 and install telecommunications systems, low 23 voltage cabling for voice and data, especially in 24 new construction projects. We offer young 25 employees the opportunity to learn a trade and 0050 1 eventually progress. It is rare that we have the 2 time to participate in something like this because 3 we're on the job pretty much all the time. We 4 can't attend these sorts of hearings. So I feel 5 somewhat of a responsibility to speak for other 6 small family owned businesses. 7 The proposed regulations as I reviewed 8 them are quite problematic to a company of our 9 size. We don't have the ability to administer the 10 record keeping that's required. We're 11 particularly concerned about Section 6(b) whereby 12 an apprentice is essentially out of a job if he or 13 she doesn't pass the exam at the two-year mark. 14 We have young trainees who actually need some time 15 to take the test more than once. Sorry that other 16 people are so perfect. They should have the 17 opportunity to continue to try. We also have some 18 who might choose to remain in that capacity, and I 19 don't believe that should be denied. 20 I think the aging work force is a reality 21 here, and I think that closing the door to more 22 apprentice opportunities is the opposite of what I 23 thought this Council is about. I'm a little 24 befuddled as to why any of these changes have been 25 proposed. I'm unaware of any problems with how 0051 1 things were running. I'm confused as to the 2 motivation. From my vantage point, the little guy 3 in the corner, it makes no sense. It will cost me 4 money. I will most likely lose some trained 5 staff, and I'll gain nothing for it. Thank you. 6 MR. LOMBARDI: Anyone? 7 MR. DURAN: My name is Al Duran. I'm the 8 business manager for the International Brothers of 9 Electrical Workers Local 99. I also sit on the 10 Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee. I sit on 11 the State Board of Electrical Examiners. And I 12 sit on the State Board of Buildings Codes 13 Commission. What I'd like to say is, apparently, 14 this industry is about to get watered down. And 15 what I mean by that is someone somewhere wants to 16 put a large influx of people into these programs 17 and into this industry to get to a point where 18 there's going to be more apprentices than 19 journeymen out there, and it is going to be 20 untrainable for the apprentices. 21 There is no way that you can get an 22 apprentice on the job one-to-one and have that 23 person do the things that a journeyman can do at 24 the end of his tenure. It's been proven in here 25 many times. A couple of speakers before me made 0052 1 those same comments. And the results will be 2 exposed over a period of time. It's not going to 3 be right off the bat. It's going to be 15 or 4 20 years down the road, when the customer finally 5 looks at his facility and sees that it's not doing 6 what it's supposed to be doing. The heating 7 system does not run properly. The electrical has 8 problems. The plumbing has problems. These are 9 all things that are not done because someone is 10 not supervised properly and learning the right way 11 to do things. 12 We currently have about 160 apprentices. 13 They do a five-year apprenticeship program, 10,000 14 hours. We are tied with the Community College of 15 Rhode Island. You are able to get an Associates 16 Degree in electrical technology after your five 17 years of apprenticeship. Also you can go on to 18 get a Bachelor of Science in electrical technology 19 from CCRI. This is all about education. This is 20 not about getting somebody's job done quickly, get 21 the profits, get out the door, cross your fingers 22 for a year, and, hopefully, it stands up. This is 23 not about that. This is about education. This is 24 about the kids. This is about the people that 25 apply for these programs that want to be in a 0053 1 career that will be paying them big dividends at 2 the end of their life. The other things I'd like 3 to discuss with the Board is, first of all, 4 Section 1(f). I believe that the apprenticeship 5 programs should be located in Rhode Island. We 6 are a "SAC" State. We are not a "BAT" State. We 7 don't reciprocate with any other state when it 8 comes to rules and regs. 9 Also Section 3(k), I believe that you can 10 suspend the -- you have a suspension of the 11 apprenticeship registration for six months. I 12 believe it should go out a little further than 13 that, at least two years. Also looking into the 14 apprenticeship program that is registered with the 15 State of Rhode Island. And 5.10, a journeyman to 16 apprenticeship ratio, established a five-to-one 17 journey person to apprenticeship ratio for all 18 construction crafts to ensure quality, training, 19 and a safe workplace. 20 The Council should also determine 21 apprenticeship ratios on a basis of a program by 22 program review and evaluation. And such a review 23 would include the facilities, its curriculum, its 24 apprenticeship graduation rate. I know we 25 graduate over 95 percent of our apprentices. 0054 1 Sure we get people in the programs that can't cut 2 the mustard. We all have that. But we don't keep 3 them in there just for the sake of watering down 4 the industry and keeping the job under budget. We 5 do it for a reason. They're not capable of 6 becoming an electrician at the end of their 7 career. Thank you very much. 8 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Duran. 9 MR. MARTIESIAN: I'm going to take a 10 little different approach, address some other 11 issues that I think are relevant. My name is 12 Terry Martiesian. I'm the State Director for the 13 National Federation of Independent Business of the 14 Rhode Island Chapter. The National Federation of 15 Independent Business is a national trade 16 association for small business, and approximately 17 2,000 members in the State of Rhode Island. A 18 number of are in the construction related fields, 19 but also a number of whom are concerned about the 20 proposed expansion of the Apprenticeship Council. 21 I am also here on behalf of the 22 Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America. 23 It's a national trade association, and it is one 24 of the only -- maybe the only national trade 25 association located in Rhode Island. And they are 0055 1 concerned about potentially the interpretation and 2 expansion of the intent of the Board. In 19 -- in 3 2004, the legislature passed and the Governor 4 signed into law 42-35-3.3, known as the "Reg Flex" 5 law. This statute is specific and requires 6 agencies to submit regulations to both the 7 Governor's office and the Economic Development 8 Council, Corporation, 15 days prior to the public 9 notice of a hearing of the proposed regulations. 10 42-35-3.3 is not discretionary in its notice 11 requirement. I am going to paraphrase this 12 client's testimony because it is quite long, and I 13 will submit copies to the Board members. 14 Members of NFIB/RI were present at the 15 meetings held by the Council subcommittee. While 16 testimony was solicited concerning potential ratio 17 changes, NFIB/RI can recall no time in which 18 testimony was solicited pertaining to additional 19 paperwork requirements or elimination of 20 reciprocity, the banning of apprenticeship 21 programs for all businesses except those 22 principally located in the State of Rhode Island, 23 or the expansion of the Council's jurisdiction. 24 Many companies did testify as to how they would 25 have to eliminate apprentices -- and you've heard 0056 1 that testimony today -- if higher ratios are 2 adopted. And the subcommittee heard testimony 3 outlining the increases in both cost to businesses 4 and to the Rhode Island consumer associated with 5 higher ratios. However, when the legal public 6 notice was published, it stated that no 7 significant economic impact was identified nor 8 were there any alternative approaches, 9 duplications, or overlaps with other State 10 regulations. 11 I would ask the Council to share the 12 conclusions of any studies it conducted to arrive 13 at that determination, because testimony provided 14 at the subcommittee meetings strongly suggested 15 otherwise. How the Council arrived at this 16 decision, I do not know. The "Red Flex" law is 17 explicit. It mandates agencies send proposed 18 regulations to EDC 15 days -- in addition to the 19 Governor's office -- 15 days prior to noticing a 20 hearing, and requires the agency to conduct the 21 study if the Economic Development Corporation 22 believes a significant economic impact to small 23 businesses may result. 24 I think you've heard a number of people 25 today testify that there is going to be an impact 0057 1 on small business. In this case, small business 2 takes the brunt of the economic impact, as the 3 smaller the business, the more difficult it will 4 be to meet one-to-one, one-to-three, one-to-five 5 ratios put forth under the regulation. And even 6 expands it to one-to-five for certain unlicensed 7 trades. NFIB/RI contacted the "Reg Flex" office 8 care of the Small Business Advocate, Rhode Island 9 Economic Development Corporation, to require 10 whether this regulatory proposal was delivered 11 prior to the public notice. We received a letter 12 via fax confirming that the regulation was not 13 sent as required under law. And I have attached 14 to my testimony a copy of that, that letter. 15 NFIB/RI requests that Rhode Island SAC 16 comply with Rhode Island law, send the regulation 17 to the "Red Flex" office, complete the economic 18 impact study, renotice the hearing so that we 19 might rightfully respond to any findings, and 20 therefore complete the regulatory process in a 21 proper and legal manner. We contend that this 22 hearing is not in compliance with Rhode Island 23 State law, and another hearing must be scheduled 24 following proper notice to the Economic 25 Development Corporation and an opportunity for the 0058 1 Economic Development Corporation to respond. 2 Four sections of the new regulation either 3 add the term "occupation" or replace the word 4 "trade" with the word "occupation." This change 5 appears to allow the Council to expand its 6 jurisdiction over vocations outside the 7 traditional construction related field. The Rhode 8 Island General Laws clearly give the Rhode Island 9 Apprenticeship Council jurisdiction to regulate 10 apprenticeship programs for skilled trades; 11 28-45-10(2). However, to strike the term "trades" 12 and replace it with the term "occupations" appears 13 to expand the Council's jurisdiction beyond the 14 statutory authority given by the General Assembly, 15 we oppose that change. 16 From a practical point of view, the term 17 "occupations" is so far-reaching that if any 18 occupation becomes licensable in the future, you 19 can set up apprenticeship requirements. And this 20 will wreak havoc on a number of industries who 21 really have nothing to do with apprenticeship 22 programs. This change has the potential to impact 23 the ability of businesses to compete locally, 24 nationally, and even internationally. We see 25 what's happened to our manufacturing industry we 0059 1 got in Rhode Island, you understand what it could 2 do. Section 2(f) of the proposed regulation 3 limits sponsors of training programs to companies 4 whose principal location is in Rhode Island. Read 5 in conjunction with Sections 1, 11 and 13 which 6 eliminate apprenticeship reciprocity recognition, 7 the proposed regulation bans utilization of 8 apprentices by companies located in another State. 9 This could have a potentially devastating impact 10 on the State's jewelry manufacturers in the future 11 because a number of them -- depending on what 12 happens in the future and the future direction of 13 this Board -- because a number of the companies in 14 Rhode Island are home based outside. The 15 principal office is outside, where they have a 16 base in Rhode Island. 17 NFIB contends that these regulations -- 18 that the provisions of these regulations are 19 per se invalid. It is an economic protectionist 20 measure that restricts a free flow of interstate 21 commerce. The regulation provides no rationale 22 for treating a company principally located in the 23 State differently from a company located -- that 24 has the same program as an in-state company and 25 further affects the out-of-state company's ability 0060 1 to participate in construction projects. The 2 courts have repeatedly struck down State laws in 3 the United States Supreme Court and other federal 4 courts. They favored in-state business over 5 out-of-state business because the alternative will 6 likely lead to states doing the same thing in 7 return. 8 Potential economic impact. We believe 9 that the passage of these regulations as presently 10 constituted will have a negative impact on job 11 development; discourage young men and women from 12 entering the trades; make it more difficult for 13 individuals and small businesses to continue their 14 business operation; increase the cost of home and 15 commercial construction improvements, repairs, 16 impact affordable housing and the cost of doing 17 business and living in the state of Rhode Island, 18 which we all know is a major, major problem; will 19 reduce the number of businesses that perform the 20 many services that Rhode Island consumers expect 21 and deserve at an affordable price. 22 Lastly, NFIB reminds the Council of the 23 legislative intent of Title 28, Chapter 45. In 24 its opening section it states: (1) to encourage 25 employers, etc., to voluntarily establish 0061 1 apprenticeship programs; (2) to create 2 opportunities for young people to obtain 3 employment and adequate training in trades in 4 business; (3) to cooperate with the promotion and 5 for development of apprenticeship programs and 6 systems in other states, and with the federal 7 committee on apprenticeship appointed, etc. And 8 (4) to provide regulation -- registration of 9 approved programs. 10 The proposed regulations set forth by this 11 Council run counter to the legislative intent. In 12 fact, the legislative intent is clear and only 13 encourages employers, etc., to voluntarily 14 establish apprenticeship programs and the making 15 of apprenticeship agreements. The words 16 "mandate", "require", "compel", and so on, do not 17 appear and this goes beyond the legislative 18 intent. The regulations ban certain businesses 19 from establishing their apprenticeship programs 20 because they are not principally located in Rhode 21 Island and reciprocity is abolished. 22 The regulations will eliminate 23 opportunities for young people to obtain 24 employment and adequate training because employers 25 will be forced to reduce the number of apprentices 0062 1 in order to comply with the new ratios established 2 or could even apply or will even apply to 3 unlicensed trades and occupations. The proposed 4 apprenticeship training under job site ratios for 5 unlicensed trades are improper and unreasonable 6 and not supported by the evidence presented and 7 beyond the scope of authority of the State 8 Apprenticeship Council as its responsibility is to 9 regulate skilled, licensed trades only. 10 The new regulations clearly contradict the 11 third legislative intent as they will eliminate 12 reciprocity completely. Safety must not be the 13 issue, for the Council did not even allow for 14 reciprocity if the apprenticeship program is 15 similar in content or time commitment. The only 16 legislative intent that seems to be held intact is 17 that of the fourth which simply calls for 18 registration. 19 For these reasons we strongly urge the 20 Council to reconsider its adoption of the proposed 21 regulations. And the rules and regulations reach 22 beyond the expressed authority provided by the 23 legislature and harm the State's economy, 24 viability, it's citizens, it's small businesses in 25 the process. Thank you. 0063 1 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Martiesian. 2 MR. BALDWIN: My name is Bob Baldwin. I'm 3 the principal of R.B. Homes, a small builder in 4 Johnston, and the secretary of the Rhode Island 5 Builders Association. I'm here today to express 6 the views of the Rhode Island Builders Association 7 on the proposed regulations which change 8 apprenticeship ratios for certain trades, many of 9 them unlicensed. We agree that the purpose of the 10 Rhode Island laws concerning apprenticeship 11 programs, as laid out in Rhode Island GL 2845-1, 12 are to encourage employers to voluntarily 13 establish apprenticeship programs particularly to 14 create opportunities for young people to learn 15 skilled trades and to force the cooperation 16 between other states and Rhode Island and the 17 federal government. 18 However, we feel that the proposed regs do 19 the opposite in too many ways. They discourage 20 employers from establishing apprenticeship 21 programs by making it onerous to create, operate, 22 and maintain apprenticeship programs, especially 23 for the small business people, and 95 percent of 24 the membership of the Rhode Island Builders 25 Association is comprised of small builders and 0064 1 small contractors. The proposed regulations make 2 it harder for young people to become apprentices 3 and then become journey persons. The ratios favor 4 the use and employment of journeymen and restrict 5 access to job sites and training to 6 non-journeymen. The proposed regulations block 7 cooperation with other states, abolish 8 reciprocity, and make it almost impossible for 9 trained, skilled tradesmen in other states to come 10 to Rhode Island to work. What happens if one of 11 our sons and daughters leaves Rhode Island, they 12 want to come back, they are licensed in another 13 state? Now they can't? 14 The proposed regulations also make it 15 almost impossible for small businesses to sponsor 16 apprenticeship programs and we're undermining the 17 abilities of those small construction companies to 18 compete with the larger ones. Most small 19 construction companies have small crews, 20 particularly with RIBA you might have three or 21 four people in the company. One-to-five ratios 22 for journeymen carpenters will put the majority of 23 the Builder's members out of business. The record 24 keeping requirements in Section 6(b)(26) are 25 beyond the capability of our small membership to 0065 1 maintain a reasonable fashion. Apprentices should 2 still be required to keep their own records, since 3 progress is important to each apprentice. 4 The United States of America, in our 5 opinion, is built on individual responsibility and 6 its freedoms. What does it teach the apprentice 7 if they don't have to be responsible for their own 8 record keeping? Does that teach that apprentice 9 to be responsible? We disagree. We don't think 10 so. That should be that person's responsibility, 11 not dumped on to the employer. 12 The building of an individual residence or 13 remodel a kitchen or a home job, for example, 14 would ordinarily be done by one experienced trades 15 person and a helper, and, at most, two trades 16 persons and an apprentice. This is certainly 17 sufficient for training, safety, and supervision, 18 yet small companies will be unable to participate 19 in a licensing program with one-to-five job site 20 ratios. The proposed regulations ignore the 21 findings of its own subcommittee, which were 22 presented on May 25, 2007. This presentation 23 concluded that higher ratios of apprentices to 24 journeymen inhibit the job development pipeline. 25 It demonstrated that lower apprentice to 0066 1 journeymen ratios create more training 2 opportunities and lower the costs of construction, 3 not raise them. And in Rhode Island, if there's 4 one thing we need is lower housing prices, not 5 more. 6 While lower ratios could mean less 7 supervision according to the report presented to 8 the Department of Labor and Training subcommittee, 9 lower apprenticeship ratios do not affect safety. 10 Alternatively, higher apprenticeship to journeymen 11 ratios increase the cost of construction. Higher 12 journeymen to apprentice ratios make it harder for 13 journeymen to pass down knowledge from generation 14 to generation. My dad taught myself, one-on-one. 15 I didn't have five dads. My dad taught my 16 brother, one-on-one. That's going to be lost. 17 And in Rhode Island Builders Association, 18 95 percent are second, third, fourth generation 19 companies. How are these fathers going to teach 20 their sons and grandsons and pass it down to the 21 next generation with these regulations? How is 22 that going to happen? You're going to lose that. 23 You're going to lose the multi-generational 24 companies that are too small to pass it on to the 25 next generation. This is a critical industry -- 0067 1 issue in our industry because less journeymen -- 2 less apprentices mean less future journeymen. 3 With only 9 percent of the work force aged 18 to 4 29, 38 percent is over the age of 50. What's 5 going to happen with the 50 year olds that retire 6 that have a pension plan? Who's going to support 7 the pension plan? Did anyone run the numbers? 8 When you have all these guys hitting 55, 60, 9 what's going to happen when the bulk of these men 10 retire and there are fewer people to support that 11 pension program? 12 The proposed regulations, particularly the 13 ratios for unlicensed trades, unlicensed trades, 14 unreasonably and for no sound reason restrict 15 rather than promote opportunities to learn a 16 trade. At the March 29th and April 17th 17 subcommittee hearings, 29 witnesses -- most 18 operating small businesses and a few trade 19 groups -- strongly testified that they had great 20 difficulty in obtaining qualified help; that any 21 ratio above one-to-one would create hardships for 22 small companies, make it very difficult to train 23 new skilled workers. By way of contrast, there 24 were 14 witnesses who supported higher journeymen 25 to apprentice ratios, 12 of whom were organized 0068 1 labor and had a vested interest in promoting 2 interests to journeymen. Unions have their 3 supporters and detractors, but it's only natural 4 that they have their interests of their own 5 journeymen members in mind, not necessarily the 6 interests of younger people who want to be trained 7 to work in the skilled trades. 8 We find the ratios proposed in the new 9 regulations are irrational, arbitrary, and 10 contrary to the purposes established by the 11 legislature. By law, apprenticeship ratios must 12 take into account proper supervision, training, 13 safety, and continuity of employment. This is 14 spelled out in Rhode Island General Law 28-45-2. 15 If my dad were still alive, I got to tell you 16 something, he would be rolling over in his grave 17 if he said he needed five of him to teach me and 18 my brother. He wouldn't believe it. And I don't 19 think any father in here would do that with their 20 own sons either. 21 As proposed, the ratios bear no 22 relationship to the statutory concerns. For 23 example, in residential construction, where most 24 of our association's members work, the proposed 25 ratio for electricians is one-to-one. Plumbers 0069 1 are one-to-one. Those jobs are skilled and 2 involve a high degree of safety and health. By 3 contrast, bricklayers and carpenters are also 4 skilled. So in residential, why is it that 5 electricians are one-to-one, and carpenters who 6 are not licensed and bricklayers who are not 7 licensed are five-to-one? The job site ratios for 8 unlicensed trades are apparently skewed in favor 9 of employing journeymen, not for the purposes of 10 job and safety. When these unlicensed trade 11 ratios are compared to licensed trades, it becomes 12 arbitrary and capricious. 13 We believe that job site ratios for 14 unlicensed trades have no relationship in anything 15 other than preference to provide work for 16 journeymen. How does training occur? I can 17 recall, specifically, with my own father. There 18 were not three or four different guys. I did 19 learn from other guys that had expertise in areas 20 that my dad did not. But it was always done on a 21 one-to-one basis. In practical applications on 22 the job like it was with me and my brother, it's 23 always one-to-one. And there's a mentorship that 24 develops between the apprentice and the 25 journeyman. Not five-to-one, five guys hopping 0070 1 around one apprentice. In reality on a job site, 2 I think we all know that. These higher ratios 3 make entry into the skilled trades difficult, if 4 not impossible, for small businesses and for young 5 people who want to learn a trade and to go to work 6 in residential construction. Ratios higher than 7 one-to-one make no sense from a practical 8 standpoint and are blatantly improper from a legal 9 standpoint, especially for the unlicensed trades. 10 It is the feeling of our association that it is 11 perhaps possible that the committees overstepped 12 its bounds in proposing regulations for unlicensed 13 trades. 14 We urge the Apprenticeship Council to 15 revisit its ratios and other rules to make sure 16 that they accomplish the goals of apprenticeship 17 programs. These goals include encouraging, not 18 discouraging employers to sponsorship 19 apprenticeship programs. The goal of creating 20 opportunities for young people in the trades must 21 be paramount, yet these regulations do the 22 opposite. 23 One small side. We've heard a lot of 24 testimony from large associations and large 25 groups. I ask the Council to particularly keep in 0071 1 mind the smaller guys; particularly like when 2 somebody testified earlier, one size does not fit 3 all, particularly in residential construction and 4 remodeling. In residential construction and 5 remodeling, if any of you guys have had any work 6 done in your house, have you ever had five 7 journeymen show up in your bathroom to put in a 8 bathroom with one apprentice? Have any of you had 9 a kitchen done where there were five journeymen in 10 that kitchen with one apprentice? And what would 11 it have cost you in your own house if that had 12 been the case? If you're going to do a remodel on 13 your own homes, what is it going to cost you to 14 have five journeymen come into your own house with 15 one apprentice? Would you even be able to afford 16 it? 17 So, again, you've got a difficult job. I 18 admire you for what you're doing. But please 19 consider the small guy and, remember, one size 20 does not fit all. Thank you very much. 21 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. 22 Anyone else? Yes, sir. 23 MR. BURNHAM: Good morning. My name is 24 David Burnham. I'm the owner of a small 25 excavating company. I'm also the President of the 0072 1 Rhode Island Independent Contractors and 2 Associates, which is an organization of about 400 3 plus small excavating contractors similar to the 4 previous speaker mentioned, where mostly one or 5 two father and son two or one or two employee 6 operations. There are a few members in the 7 organization that probably have over five or six 8 employees. We provide residential, commercial, 9 and industrial site work within the State of Rhode 10 Island. Many of the members are from some of the 11 outlying areas. So they work in other states as 12 well. 13 My concern is because of the size of our 14 particular operations that we could never meet the 15 ratios that are proposed in Appendix A for 16 operating engineers. I think that if we could, 17 then it would be certainly an economic hardship on 18 us to have the one-to-five ratio in there, since 19 most of our members don't even come anywhere near 20 that amount of employees. I think we feel the 21 impact of that economically and very seriously. 22 I've been in this business 42 years. I've 23 been an advocate of safety and training for 24 operating engineers. I've probably been the thorn 25 in the side of the Operating Engineers Board for 0073 1 many years, and, finally, I was appointed to the 2 Board and, finally, Serving Chairman. And the 3 Board is working on a way for the training of 4 hoisting engineers, and I would specifically 5 request that you drop the section on operating 6 engineers, noticing that in Appendix A, you have 7 operating engineers as a one-to-five ratio in 8 commercial, residential, and manufacturing. 9 You also have at the end that a license is 10 required. Well, in order to get a license, you 11 have to pass a written exam and demonstrate some 12 experience. And the Board is addressing the issue 13 of license and getting experience. There is no 14 way that someone could go out and learn this as an 15 apprentice and not be licensed. So I'm kind of 16 having trouble balancing that issue. If I don't 17 have a license, then I'm on equal footing with 18 somebody else who has a license. So I don't 19 understand your implication here on the process. 20 So I would respectfully ask that you drop 21 the hoisting or the operating engineers as you 22 have listed here from that, and let the Board of 23 Hoisting Engineers deal with that specific 24 subject. Thank you for your time. 25 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you. Anyone else 0074 1 want to testify? Okay, if there is no one else -- 2 sir. And then -- 3 MR. LACHAPPELLE: Thank you. Good 4 morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Council 5 my name is Ernie LaChappelle, and I represent 6 Ralco Electric in Westport. My concern is for the 7 apprentices that we employee residing in the State 8 of Rhode Island. I would like to make comment to 9 Section 2(f) to the proposed regulation. This new 10 regulation would change the definition for what a 11 sponsor means in the regulations. The change in 12 definition would eliminate the current regulation, 13 allowing out-of-state sponsors of the Rhode Island 14 apprenticeship program, if the office of the 15 sponsor is not principally located in the State. 16 By doing so, it will seriously displace workers 17 who are currently in the State apprenticeship 18 program attending classes in this State who are 19 working in the trades to support their families. 20 Employees working for Ralco living in this 21 State through no fault of their own will lose 22 jobs. I seriously doubt that was the intention of 23 the committee by proposing these new regulations. 24 If you review Rhode Island General Law Section 25 28-45-16 entitled "Reciprocity", it would seem 0075 1 logical that it's purpose was to provide 2 reciprocity with the neighboring states. The use 3 of reciprocity has been very important for 4 employees of both Rhode Island and neighboring 5 states. Many residents in Rhode Island are 6 working in the trade to establish themselves as 7 licensed electricians. Taking away the use of 8 reciprocity with the neighboring states by 9 modifying this definition of sponsor will 10 effectively hurt these men and women from earning 11 a living under your proposed regulation. 12 This change in the sponsor definition 13 would effectively eliminate the use of reciprocity 14 written in the Rhode Island General Laws, and I 15 doubt that this is the intent of the Council. I 16 ask you to reconsider this section. I believe 17 that as an employer of the trades and with you, 18 the Council, together we have an obligation to 19 provide for our work force to replace the shortage 20 of trades people in the very near future. 21 I'd like to read an article from Cabling 22 and Installations Maintenance. It starts off as 23 massive shortage of electricians predicted for the 24 U.S. It's dated January 30th, 2007. It goes on 25 to read, "America will face the shortage of 0076 1 electricians in the near future according to the 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Projections 3 show that the year of 2014 the national need for 4 electrical workers will rise to more than 734,000, 5 a figure 78,000 beyond the number currently 6 employed in the fields. A number of factors are 7 seen converging to produce the predicted shortfall 8 in electrical workers. 9 From high-tech demands swelling faster 10 within the ranks to the overall grain of America. 11 Electrical workers are aging, as is the general 12 population. The task here is not only to recruit 13 and train more electricians to meet the needs of 14 the growing industry, but to make the provisions 15 to replace the current electricians who will 16 retire. 17 The predicted shortfall of electricians in 18 the U.S won't be just the industry's problem, as 19 you all know, the President of Amica National 20 Electrical Contractors Association. Shortages 21 affect all businesses up and down the line by 22 generally driving up the cost and driving down the 23 quality of any product or service. America is not 24 alone in defending the shortage of electricians. 25 Around the world industrialized nations are 0077 1 grappling with the shortfalls and their workers' 2 of the population age." 3 I heard a comment a few minutes ago about 4 the one-to-one ratio and the supervision, and it 5 made me think of my background coming from a 6 vocational school. When I was in vocational 7 school, I had one instructor with approximately 8 anywhere between 18 to 20 students. I mean, I 9 thought I had a great education at a high school 10 level to enter this trade. And I think that goes 11 way beyond a one-to-one and not actually out 12 physically in the field, but from learning at a 13 basic high school level. If we can train 18 to 20 14 students under one supervisor, one instructor in a 15 class and a student to come out with a fairly good 16 understanding of the trade, the one-to-one would 17 have a really strong merit once you graduate from 18 a high school or vocational school and enter the 19 trades. And I ask you to consider that. 20 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you. 21 MR. CARNEY: Howard Carney, C-A-R-N-E-Y. 22 State Director, Office of Apprenticeship Rhode 23 Island. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's 24 a pleasure to see you all here. This is the 25 biggest and the biggest number of people that I 0078 1 have ever seen at an apprenticeship meeting. I've 2 been down here for approximately 24, 25 years. 3 I'd like to start off by thanking you people for 4 your interest. Secondly, I'd like to compliment 5 this Board. I've been working with a lot of these 6 people here for over 10 years, and it is a lot 7 different Board than I was used to when I first 8 got here. These people are very hard-working, 9 dedicated people. They have gone out of their way 10 to be fair with everybody. I compliment you all 11 for that. 12 Do we make mistakes? Yes, we do. Are 13 they done intentionally? No, they are not. 14 Sometimes they are done out of ignorance. 15 Sometimes we ask for help, and we do not get it 16 from above. We try and do the best job we can 17 with what we have. The reason for me standing 18 before you today is just to help clarify a couple 19 of terminologies, I use the word terminologies, 20 that I've heard today. And before you leave I 21 want you to think about them. 22 Like I said, this Council operates under 23 the recognition of my federal office in 24 Washington, D.C. We were not notified properly 25 also. They -- my office will be the deciding 0079 1 factor of what will be allowed and what will not 2 be allowed. You know the federal government 3 doesn't differentiate between any entity, whether 4 union or non-union or whatever. Apprenticeship is 5 not a union/non-union issue. It's an 6 overfive/one-to-five. But we all are here for the 7 same purpose for the sake of the apprentice. 8 We have suggested that the word "trade" be 9 changed to "occupation" because this program since 10 it's starting in 1937 seems to be centered in the 11 construction industries. And my office in 12 Washington wants to expand it to what we call 13 non-traditional areas, such as informational 14 technology, health fields, a lot of different 15 areas. But we seem to be stigmatized, and I don't 16 feel unjustly, that apprenticeship only means 17 union and trades. That's not true. When this 18 program started, it started for all industries. 19 But it's very hard to break out of that mindset. 20 When these people here are talking about 21 apprenticeship, they're not just talking about the 22 construction industry. They're here for all 23 industries. And that's why the word "occupation" 24 was, there was a suggestion that it be changed, so 25 it didn't just mean the construction industry. 0080 1 The Office of Apprenticeship gives approval to a 2 State to operate within their territorial borders, 3 and I'm pretty sure that it is only within their 4 territorial borders. The SAC representative is 5 not allowed to go outside to monitor programs. 6 Luckily, by working with the SAC, I can go out and 7 I've been handling the out-of-state entities that 8 were given the authority by this Council to run 9 apprenticeship programs in Rhode Island. That 10 came about because of the confusion between 11 apprenticeship definitions and licensing 12 definitions. 13 The State of Rhode Island on a licensing 14 basis has to recognize an out-of-state entity. 15 For apprenticeship purposes, this Council only has 16 the authority to operate within their territorial 17 borders. We have reciprocity for two neighboring 18 states, which means if they are running a 19 registered apprenticeship program in their 20 particular state, we will acknowledge that. There 21 is a lot of confusion over that because of this 22 licensing and apprenticeship issue. 23 As far as the ratio goes, when this 24 program came about for '37, the originators -- 25 and, as far as I'm concerned, before I go any 0081 1 further, I just want to state that I think that 2 this whole program started in Rhode Island through 3 the Congressmen in Connecticut, when they got the 4 idea from a Rhode Island company. And, as far as 5 I'm concerned, Rhode Island is the birthplace of 6 the federal apprenticeship program. 7 The ratio came about, the state, federal 8 regs do not envision what the ratio should be. 9 Back in '37, they came out with a magic number of 10 five. So that meant that for every journeyman you 11 could have one apprentice. It was a one-to-five 12 ratio. Through the years the ratio has been 13 changed by different states. But traditionally in 14 Rhode Island before I came here, it was always 15 one-to-five. It's never been challenged up until 16 this point in time. The rationale behind it was 17 the fact that there are different styles of 18 learning and different styles of teaching. 19 Sometimes personalities get in the way. So if 20 you're stuck with one journeyman, and he's not 21 teaching you the correct way, you're going to 22 create, you're going to get bad habits. 23 So the intent was to move that one 24 apprentice throughout the work force, not 25 intentionally working for the one individual. But 0082 1 between five of the journeymen so he can increase 2 or she can increase their knowledge base and learn 3 different styles. And if one person was showing 4 him the wrong way, he could correct it if he could 5 work it. So that was the history of why the ratio 6 came into effect. I've heard mention of records, 7 and it is mandatory by federal law that you keep 8 these records. What we use the work process for 9 is to try to ensure that the employer is trying to 10 move the apprentice around and teach him as much 11 of the occupation as possible with the workload 12 that they have. It's a means where the Office for 13 Apprenticeship representative will go in and help 14 monitor and make sure the individual is being 15 moved around. 16 We have a work process. It is given -- 17 it's not real world. It's book things that 18 somebody came up with. And what I say is it's not 19 applicable a lot of times. Sometimes your work 20 load doesn't cover all the aspects that are 21 covered in the work process. But what it is is a 22 guide for the sponsor, or the sponsor's 23 representative of the journeymen to make sure and 24 monitor the apprentice. It's a systemized 25 approach apprenticeship and to give the 0083 1 individual, just to be given random jobs from time 2 to time. So this way here we can go in and make 3 sure that the apprentice is moved around. That's 4 the intent of it. I've heard mention about 5 extensions. When we make out an apprentice 6 agreement, there is an estimated completion time 7 on there. In the real world it doesn't work. It 8 doesn't mean that an individual is going to 9 complete a 144 hours of class related instruction 10 every year on time. You may miss some classes. 11 There's no way that somebody in the construction 12 industry is going to work a full 52 weeks a year, 13 which is what their time is based on. 14 What we're saying is we understand things 15 are going to happen along the way, that people 16 aren't going to finish their OJT on time. So what 17 we're saying is that we'll allow extensions. But 18 after two years, we think that that's enough time 19 for somebody to make up their lost time or to take 20 a test once or twice. After two years that means 21 something is drastically wrong with their training 22 program. And it has to be looked at. So if any 23 individual does need additional time, it should be 24 granted by the Committee. Now, there are a lot of 25 things that -- these people serve and they don't 0084 1 get paid to come here. They're here on their own 2 free will or whatever because of the interest in 3 the apprenticeship. We do not have the personnel 4 to correctly monitor a lot of frames. In addition 5 to serving in Rhode Island, I think we serve in 6 three different states, that's how sharp we are. 7 Just ECNER works alone and sometimes with a 8 part-time secretary. We have been promised over 9 the years that we will have additional staff, and 10 apprenticeship seems to be always at the bottom of 11 the list, which is probably understandable. We 12 understand that. But we try and do the best that 13 we can with the best that we have. 14 I have started to run out in the last year 15 or two to help the SAC monitor the EEO programs 16 because of the State licensing legislature and 17 there are a lot of companies now who are open by 18 the Council. We haven't hit -- the ones that we 19 haven't hit this year, I am on a five-year plan to 20 make sure that everybody is up-to-date. With 21 that, I'll close. Thank you, gentlemen, for the 22 great job you're doing here in Rhode Island. 23 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Mr. Carney. Is 24 there anybody? Yes, sir. 25 MR. PETRUCCI: My name is Louie Petrucci. 0085 1 I'm a project manager for Interstate Electrical 2 Services. After reviewing these rules and regs, 3 and I know some of these things are not 4 intentional, most of the things have already been 5 hit on, and I just want to repeat a couple of 6 things because they are really going to affect 7 people within our organization. Section 2(f) with 8 the principal location. If something like this 9 was to come into effect, right away I would have 10 to let 12 people go because my principal operation 11 is not in the State of Rhode Island. So I've got 12 12 apprentices I would have to send home. 13 Similar wording has been put into 14 legislation at the State House level trying to 15 stop out-of-state apprentices coming in. Or 16 Massachusetts has already turned around and said 17 that at that time they would return the favor, and 18 I'm pretty sure they would do this by not allowing 19 our apprentices into Mass. It just doesn't seem 20 to be user-friendly to the contractor, the way I 21 look at what we're talking about is written here. 22 The other item is the sponsor violation. 23 It's not clear. I mean, what constitutes a 24 violation? And just because of something as 25 simple as out of ratio on a job, a licensed guy 0086 1 leaves a job site, you're in violation. Does that 2 mean he gets automatically suspended? I mean, 3 after a hearing for six months? And that means 4 all the other apprentices are out of work now 5 because I don't have an apprenticeship program? 6 The other thing is the ratio. Like Mr. Baldwin, 7 I, too, had one father, and I am thankful for 8 that. That's how I learned. It worked. It 9 worked well. With a ratio problem, I have no 10 issue with a one-to-one ratio. It's been working. 11 I have asked some people on the Board, I've asked 12 other individuals in regards to is there anything 13 out there to show as far as safer if it's a safer 14 environment on one-to-three or one-to-one than a 15 one-to-three or a one-to-five? I can't find any 16 studies, nothing to even warrant a study as far as 17 a one-to-five ratio being safer or a one-to-three 18 ratio being a safer environment. That same 19 apprentice -- that possibly if you change the 20 principal location portion, that same apprentice 21 could lose their job because of a ratio issue. 22 Then the cost, you know, the cost to the 23 consumer, because now you're going to have to put 24 more licensed people on the project rather than an 25 apprentice and a licensed person. Elimination of 0087 1 jobs, more of a burden on the State, because now 2 you're going to have people out of work. Service 3 level. By increasing the ratio, jobs aren't going 4 to get done in a more timely fashion because you 5 have fewer people coming into the trade. And when 6 we talk about safety, safety is more of a mindset 7 of the company. You can have -- you can talk all 8 you want to about safety. But if the company 9 doesn't really put their money where their mouth 10 is and really practice it and do what they're 11 supposed to do, it is not a safe company. You can 12 talk all you want. All right. There are 13 companies out there that do the talk but don't do 14 the walk. That's another issue. 15 Training, some people take a little longer 16 to learn than others. That's just the way it is. 17 I've been through different aspects of training, 18 and different people learn differently. That's 19 how it is. So some of them are going to do it in 20 four years. Some of them are going to have to 21 take the test more than once. Some of them are 22 going to ace it the first time. Welcome to the 23 human race. The part of trade occupation 24 throughout this here, we're here to talk about 25 here, you're going to change it to occupation so 0088 1 you can bring in more different occupations, and 2 now you want to bring in not the trades, now we're 3 going to make this broader. You want to further 4 impact an already overextended Council and staff. 5 I mean, you can't do -- Buddy, now you want to 6 tell him that he's going to have to oversee some 7 more trades or occupations out there. You tell 8 him. I'm not going to tell him. There is just 9 going to be more of a burden on the State. 10 It just doesn't seem to be more 11 user-friendly to contractors or construction. We 12 seem to be putting borders up all the time. We're 13 always ready to put walls up that we don't want 14 people to come into the State. It's great to 15 think that we are that unique that there are 16 people waiting on the border to come into this 17 State to do work. Well, guess what? We live in a 18 region where