"Supervisory Training Proposal"
Industry Partnership Meeting Summary September 6, 2007 The meeting of representatives of the Great Lakes Building Trades and local contractors was held on September 6, 2007 at 3:30 pm at the Maennerchor Club. In Attendance were: George Sommer-Sheet Metal Dan Harmon-Plumbers Dale Niemenski-Operating Engineers Chip Folletti-Carpenters John Tretter-Laborers Gena Shingle-Erie Construction Council Matt Sahlmann-E.E. Austin and Son Emily Moore-Strategy Solutions Nick Schultz-Strategy Solutions Paul Newlin-RCWE Jim Schreiber-Eriez Construction Mike Nesterick-Painters Doug Armstrong- MCA of NWPA Tim Hepler- Electricians Proposal for Supervisory Training Nick distributed the Association of General Contractor’s proposal for Supervisory Training. The training would take place in Erie with the location/s determined by the group. The training schedule runs from October to mid-January and consists of 10 modules that are delivered over a two eight hour classes. If the group decided to send 75 workers through the training at a cost of $395 a module per person, completing 10 modules to receive certification the total cost for the group is $296,250. The preferred method of payment is included in the proposal however the training coordinator will work with the group and is aware that this training is being funded by a grant. This cost would come out of what the group is awarded for the incumbent worker grant. The 10 modules cover the areas of training that the contractors/trade representatives requested. The minimum and maximum number of students per class is 25, so the proposal suggests running three classes simultaneously with Industry Partnership Meeting Summary September 6, 2007 25 students in each. The number of students in each class per trade can be determined by the group. The group voiced some concerns with the proposal. Points of that discussion are listed below: Concern that the timeframe for completion is too tight especially with hunting season Working out the logistics with the contractors to see if they will let the workers leave work for two days to complete this training Some unions have more interest in the program than others, some unions/contractors felt that other types of training may be more necessary There is a ¼ cash match required by the state for all training funds given to the private sector, the other 75% is an in-kind match which consists of wages, benefits, etc. There was also some concern that groups would not be able to get the cash match quick enough to start the training in Oct. Whether consortium training or individual training is more important The group was then informed of the “train the trainer” idea, which could save the group the cash match. The decisions regarding who goes to training, how many classes should be run and when need to be determined by the group in order to move forward with the proposal. Nick and the staff at the WIB will work with Partnership members to answer any further questions about funding and training plans.