Establishing the President's National Council for the American Worker

Overview

Establishment and Objectives: Executive Order 13845, signed by President Donald Trump on July 19, 2018, establishes the President's National Council for the American Worker. This initiative addresses the skill shortage crisis in the United States, where more than 6.7 million jobs remain unfilled due to a mismatch between workforce skills and employer needs. The order underscores the necessity for a cohesive national strategy to ensure that students and workers gain access to affordable, relevant, and innovative education and job training, thereby preparing them for a changing economy propelled by technological advancements such as automation and artificial intelligence.

Composition and Functions: The order sets up a Council co-chaired by high-ranking officials including the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor, alongside the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, among others. The Council is tasked with formulating recommendations on policies and strategies related to the American workforce. It aims to foster coordination among various sectors, including private employers, educational institutions, and labor unions, to create workforce development strategies that emphasize skills-based training in alignment with the emerging economic landscape.

Initial Tasks and Strategies: Within 180 days of the order, the Council was mandated to launch a national awareness campaign addressing the skills crisis and importance of STEM education. It also sought to revise workforce training paradigms by advocating for industry-recognized credentials, earn-and-learn opportunities, and partnerships that align educational endeavors with market needs. Ultimately, the order prioritizes the development of a demand-driven approach to workforce training, fostering lifelong learning and consistent reevaluation of the necessary skills to thrive in the 21st-century economy.

Advisory Board's Role: Additionally, EO 13845 establishes the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board. This Board comprises up to 25 private sector, educational, and state representatives, providing a diverse range of perspectives to advise the Council on strategies for overcoming the skills gap. The Board's establishment reflects an emphasis on collaborative public-private partnerships to enhance educational and training frameworks to be more responsive to economic demands.

Administrative Structure and Duration: The Department of Commerce is charged with providing the Council and Board necessary administrative support, with an Executive Director managing day-to-day functions. The order has a built-in termination clause, stating that both the Council and the Board will disband two years post-establishment unless extended, providing a structured timeline for evaluating the order's impact and efficacy.

Legal and Policy Implications

Federal Workforce Development Policy: The executive order constitutes a significant shift in federal policy towards a more integrated approach to workforce development, emphasizing the collaboration of government with private and educational sectors. It seeks to embed a skills-focused narrative within executive branch activities, altering how education and employment training programs are developed and implemented.

Regulatory and Compliance Adjustments: By instituting the Council and Board, the EO potentially necessitates adjustments in regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance with new initiatives. This could involve changes in funding allocations, incentives for companies that invest in workforce development, and modifications in how educational institutions define and measure training success.

Constitutional Considerations: While the EO operates within the President’s executive powers to direct federal workforce policy, it raises questions about the balance of power concerning education, typically a local and state jurisdiction. There is potential tension between federal policy aims and state-level educational authority, emphasizing the importance of cooperative frameworks outlined in the order.

Impact on Existing Programs: The order could supersede or lead to the modification of existing federal workforce programs, particularly those that fail to align with the new strategic priorities of skills and demand-driven initiatives. This requires careful integration to ensure continuity and maximal impact of pre-existing programs while embracing new policy directions.

Interagency Coordination: The establishment of the Council necessitates extensive interagency coordination, which may require statutory or policy-based changes to existing interdepartmental procedures. This ensures consistency across federal efforts aimed at workforce development, potentially streamlining processes and removing redundancies within federal workforce initiatives.

Who Benefits

American Workforce and Job Seekers: The primary beneficiaries of EO 13845 are American workers and job seekers, particularly those whose skills do not currently meet market demands. By fostering an environment of affordable, accessible training, these groups gain improved pathways to well-paid employment, aligning workforce skills with employer needs.

Private Sector Employers: The order benefits companies by encouraging collaboration with government and educational institutions to craft demand-driven training programs. Businesses stand to gain from a reduced skills gap, leading to a more capable workforce and increased productivity.

Educational Institutions: Universities and community colleges are poised to benefit through partnerships with industries to develop curricula that respond to technological changes and labor market demands. These collaborations can enhance institutional reputations and job placement rates for graduates.

Technological and Emerging Industries: Sectors at the forefront of automation and innovation, such as technology and advanced manufacturing, are likely to benefit as a better-skilled workforce becomes available. By aligning training programs with these sectors' needs, these industries can tap into a more prepared labor pool.

Young Americans: Young individuals entering the workforce or higher education benefit from clarity in education and career pathways. With greater transparency in job requirements and available training resources, they can make informed decisions leading to fulfilling careers aligned with future industry trends.

Who Suffers

Traditional Education Providers: Institutions heavily invested in traditional educational frameworks may find these changes challenging. A shift towards skills-based and demand-driven education might diminish the emphasis on broad-based curriculum offerings, causing potential disruptions.

Displaced Workers Resistant to Change: Individuals reluctant or unable to engage in re-training might struggle in adjusting to these new economic landscapes. Those without access or means to participate in innovative training programs might fall behind in the competitive job market.

Small Businesses in Low-Tech Sectors: Not all sectors require advanced training for their workforce. Smaller companies in traditional sectors might find themselves pressured to adopt new training norms or face employee retention issues as workers pursue opportunities in higher-paying, skill-driven industries.

State and Local Education Authorities: The order potentially disrupts existing state and local education policies by driving federal initiatives that might not align with regional priorities, leading to conflicts in educational policy execution and funding distributions.

Public Sector Unions: Public sector unions, particularly those engaged in education or lower-skilled training areas, might oppose shifts that prioritize private sector partnerships and potentially reduce union influence over training paradigms and employment conditions.

Historical Context

Historical Trends in Workforce Policy: EO 13845 aligns with historical trends where federal interventions have attempted to address workforce skills gaps and align educational outcomes with economic needs. Historical legislation like the GI Bill and Workforce Investment Act underscores this trajectory.

Trump Administration’s Policy Themes: The order reflects President Trump’s broader policy themes prioritizing American economic competitiveness and job growth. It underscores his administration's focus on deregulation and partnerships with the private sector to stimulate economic development.

Apprenticeship and Vocational Training Revival: The EO is part of a wider revival in interest toward apprenticeships and vocational training under the Trump administration. It follows previous orders aimed at expanding apprenticeships as a viable alternative to traditional educational pathways.

Focus on Innovation and Emerging Industries: Reflecting a global shift towards technology and innovation-driven economies, the order highlights the necessity of preparing the workforce for emerging industries. It places the U.S. in line with international efforts to integrate technology with economic growth strategies.

Impact on Political Regimes: This EO represents a broader political commitment to reshaping labor market dynamics, appealing to constituencies impacted by job displacement and economic dislocation due to technological changes. It’s a strategic political maneuver to address concerns of economic insecurity among American workers.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Interagency Conflicts and Bureaucratic Challenges: The EO's call for extensive interagency collaboration can produce bureaucratic hurdles. Conflicts may arise between agencies with divergent priorities or budgetary constraints, undermining the unified execution of workforce strategies.

Federal vs. State Educational Authority: By directing federal policy in what has traditionally been a state-controlled domain, the EO may encounter resistance from state governments asserting their education system control, potentially leading to legal challenges or conflicts over funding allocations.

Financial Constraints and Funding Priorities: The successful implementation of EO 13845 hinges on funding availability. Financial constraints or competition for budgetary allocations among federal programs could impede the full realization of its ambitions, limiting the scope of proposed initiatives.

Political Opposition and Advocacy Group Criticism: The order may face criticism from political adversaries or advocacy groups who argue that it prioritizes business interests over comprehensive educational reform or diminishes the role of public sector unions in workforce development.

Long-term Sustainability and Impact Assessment: Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Council and Board's initiatives requires comprehensive impact assessment frameworks. Delays or inadequacies in impact evaluation could lead to ineffective policy directions remaining unchallenged or uncorrected, prompting questions about the EO's efficacy.