EMPLOYMENT SERVICE AUTOMATION

Question. A number of States have set up early intervention programs to help unemployment insurance claimants return to the workforce quickly. How can we make such programs work if the Employment Service continues to be eroded?

I understand that in some states, job applicants can use a self-service approach to finding jobs in the Employment Service local offices. Iowa has a pilot project in Marshalltown where Workforce Center of the Future will incorporate a variety of computer technologies, including hardware and software designed to allow greater access for both job seekers and potential employers,

It seems to me that such an approach would speed up the applicant process so that those people who need extra help in finding jobs can receive the time and attention they need, all, the Department of Labor--in recent years--has stressed the need to work with hard-to-place, multi-barrier individuals. the Department has repeatedly refused to ask for automation funding for the Employment Service.

Answer. The example that you have provided is just o04 automation model among several other excellent efforts wÕRTSBYD by the States. Also the Department has develops, and many o are now installing, a system which we call kill a wash m exchange. ALEX provides states the capability to permit jobseekers to conduct automated self-search for jos opening by geographic areas, job categories or interests.

Question.

Why has the $12 millia wyrain for u automation not yet been allocated to any of the auSMBG, SK

innovative programs to speed service, reach hard-to-place job seekers, and contribute to overall economic development. The toll-free 1-800-JOB-IOWA information line and Iowa's at-risk youth program come immediately to mind. Can you outline some of the others and what steps the Department has taken to ensure success in these programs?

Answer. The Department has developed a number of approaches over the past few years to encourage State Employment Service (ES) agency innovative projects. First, we have completed seven innovative demonstration projects. We provided $200,000 each to seven States to develop innovative approaches aimed at improving ES services. These projects included improving coordination between ES and Job Training Partnership Act program operators; and developing and testing an integrated computer-based assessment, referral and job placement system, as examples.

The Department has held Forums to discuss innovations in process in States, and has developed and distributed a catalogue to all States listing those innovations. In addition, we have published the major speeches given at the Forums by futurists, educators, ES administrators, and private industry experts. Overall, we have encouraged States in meetings and in publications to experiment and to analyze future needs and ways to meet them. States have responded by visiting innovative projects in other States to obtain additional details, and then designing their own projects.

Since authority has been decentralized to States to make decisions based upon the unique needs of their communities we have seen increased action by States to design program components that are effective and efficient, in other words, programs that work. The Department will continue to work with States to encourage

innovation.

DELAYS IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS

Question. This recession has found the unemployment insurance system ill-prepared to serve jobless workers--there are long lines, overcrowded offices, and payment delays in many parts of the country. Iowa's unemployed are experiencing 3 to 4 week delays in receiving their first unemployment insurance check. has this happened?

Why

Answer. Due to the national recession, UI workloads have risen rapidly, resulting in delays in claimants receiving their first unemployment compensation check in some States. To cope with the high workloads, some States have curtailed "upfront" integrity-related activities in order to meet workload demands and issue prompt payment of benefits. Many States are able to handle the increased workloads only due to staff working overtime and extended office hours, including Saturdays. Office managers are helping process claims workload in many cases.

REPAIRS IN UI SYSTEM

Question. Does the President's budget include adequate funds

to repair this system--expand the number of offices and workload capacity of the system?

Answer. The President's FY 1992 budget request for UI administration is $178.4 million above the proposed FY 1991 level. Based on the Administration's current economic assumptions for FY 1992, we believe it includes sufficient funds to meet all the projected workloads and increased costs due to general inflation. However, if the unemployment forecasts for FY 1992 change, this could impact on the level of funds needed.

With regard to the number of local offices, the results received to date from the Department's local office survey, conducted in FY 1990 at Chairman Natcher's request, indicate that most SESAS have maintained the same number of full-time local offices. The opening and closing of full-service offices is often a result of State decisions to consolidate employment and training services, including UI, in one location rather than having several locations serving different programs.

BASE STAFF LEVEL

Question. How does the base staff level proposed for FY 1992 compare with the FY 1991 level?

Answer. The base staff level for FY 1992 is 37,612 staff years, 104 staff years higher than the FY 1991 base staff level of 37,508 staff years.

DAVIS-BACON HELPER REGULATIONS

Question. What is your timetable for implementation of the Davis-Bacon helper regulations?

Answer. The helper regulations became effective on February 4, 1991. The Wage and Hour Division plans to implement these regulatory changes in three steps. First, our existing resources will be focused on issuing appropriate wage determinations from all wage surveys where data collection had been completed prior to the February 4 implementation date. Second, survey staff will be utilized to respond to conformance requests (1.8., requests to add helper classifications and associated wage rates to existing vege determinations). Third, as resources permit, new wage surveys will be conducted, including information on the employment of helpers where the use of helpers prevails locally.

The process of reviewing and leaving appropriate vege determinations from completed wage surveys is presently modareny, Since the revised helper regulation ay ay to comtreme wars the Invitation For Bids (173) was issued on or after forvary 4, or the negotiations were completed a or after tersary 4, an to not expect to begin receiving significane number of soxformCCA requests mutil sometime early this summer.

the developing conformance eties so we sailareia.

of the substantial wax wx with name msnær A the implementation plat, kage and tout to cherry S. " conduct new wage surveys drag i 1991s resist, way to erect to resume a normal survey program sanja in ry 1992 nilah vy the additional resource requera,

Question. How have you responded to criticisms that proposed helper regulations will assign many of the traditional tasks of construction laborers to lower paid employment, and undermine training activities aimed at upgrading skills of laborers in response to the advent of the modern, high technology, construction industry?

Answer. We disagree with the charge that the new helper regulations will assign traditional tasks of construction laborers to lower paid employment. In fact, this charge, among others, was examined extensively in the course of protracted agency rulemaking and litigation and was rejected by the courts. The issues were fully decided in the Department of Labor's favor for implementing the helper rules.

-

The courts ruled the helper regulations are entirely consistent with the language and purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act, which is to protect locally prevailing practices on Federal construction projects. The statute compels the results that the helper regulations will achieve namely, helpers will be allowed on Davis-Bacon jobs, but only in areas where they prevail, and to do the same tasks they already do on private construction projects according to local area practices, i.e., to perform the semiskilled work of a trade under the direction and supervision of journeylevel workers. The new rules will enable Davis-Bacon wage determinations to more accurately reflect what is actually being paid in local areas, to satisfy the statutory intent that wages on Federal construction projects "mirror" those that are locally prevailing. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals summarized it, '... the new regulation is an entirely logical response to the problem of federal construction practice not reflecting the widespread, but not universal, practice of using helpers. The new regulation would lower the current federal wages for the most part in those nonunion areas where they are significantly above the wages paid in the area Thus, the new regulation would be narrowly aimed at correcting the federal practice in areas where it has not worked well and would not result in a wholesale

"

...

reduction in journeyman wages." (Bldg. and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 712 F.2d 611 (1983), at 630)

The laborer classification is distinctly different from the helper category. Laborers do not typically use tools of a trade to perform semi-skilled tasks that overlap the duties of workers in the skilled trades, and do not typically directly assist such workers in the skilled trades under a journeyman's direct supervision as defined in the rules, as the Department explained in the rulemaking and litigation. Moreover, there is no economic incentive for contractors to replace laborers with helpers. Prevailing pay relationships in the industry are generally in direct proportion to skill levels, which makes it unlikely that helpers will ever substitute for laborers. By definition, the helper classification is a semi-skilled classification as opposed to an unskilled or a skilled mechanic's classification. Prevailing rates for semi-skilled helpers are in most cases above the levels prevailing for the unskilled laborer's classification. Only if a wage determination contained open shop rates for the journeyman and helper classifications, coupled with a union

laborer rate higher than the helper rate, could an economic incentive exist to replace laborers with helpers. It is almost never the case that where there is an open shop journeyman rate a union laborer rate also prevails. (54 Fed. Reg. 4242; January 27, 1989)

In view of these considerations, we do not believe the criticisms are justified.

Question. In addition to the 13 FTEs and $750,000 increase requested in your FY 1992 budget, what FTE and dollar amount is currently being spent for helper regulation implementation?

Answer. Because Davis-Bacon staff are not assigned to work exclusively on helpers implementation issues, quantifying FTE and dollars currently being spent for implementation of these regulations would be quite difficult and any estimates would be rough at best. Work on implementation of the helper regulations is being done by current Wage and Hour staff.

We are working diligently to ensure that the regulations are implemented fairly, in a manner consistent with the rulings of the courts. This has required that we utilize resources which would otherwise have been largely devoted to the FY 1991 wage survey/determination program.

To date, we estimate that about a dozen employees from both the Wage and Hour and ESA support staff have been involved with helper-related tasks, including the preparation of materials for staff training on implementation of the helper regulation changes. There have been no other costs beyond normal program operating costs.

Question. What would be the impact of not getting the requested FY 1992 request?

Answer. As previously noted, largely to accommodate helperrelated workloads, Wage and Hour does not plan to conduct any new Davis-Bacon wage surveys until FY 1992. The staff resources normally used to perform wage rate surveys will be used to act on already completed surveys and to process helper-related conformance requests.

If our FY 1992 request was not approved and conformance workloads develop as we expect, we would have to consider reducing the FY 1992 wage survey program. If this occurs, changes in construction industry wage structures may not be reflected in Davis-Bacon wage determinations in a timely manner. As reflected in our request, we believe that the adverse programmatic consequences of diverting existing resources to address these workloads would be unacceptable.