More

Obama's 'Bridge To Work' Proposal 'A No-Go Proposition' For Big Employer


First Posted: 10/06/11 02:17 PM ET Updated: 12/06/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's proposal to let businesses train the unemployed without having to pay them is "a no-go proposition" for at least one big employer.

President Obama's "Bridge to Work" plan would allow people on unemployment insurance to spend up to eight weeks as unpaid trainees at participating employers in hopes of learning new skills or getting hired. The program would be voluntary for businesses and trainees.

Recruiter Chris McConnell testified before a House subcommittee Thursday that AlliedBarton Security Services, a security guard supplier with more than 50,000 employees across the U.S., would not want to participate.

"For AlliedBarton, these types of programs where somebody is training with us while receiving UI are a no-go proposition," McConnell said. "Legally, we can't have anybody standing post as a security officer unless we employ them. I would imagine that we aren't alone in this sense."

Bridge to Work would be problematic for AlliedBarton in more than just a legal sense. "We'e also very conscious of equity in the workplace," McConnell said. "We want to treat all of our employees with the same set of rules and employment conditions."

The White House has pushed its Bridge to Work program over labor objections because it is popular with Republicans currently standing in the way of the president's $450 billion jobs bill. Bridge to Work would only be open to jobless workers receiving federal unemployment benefits that kick in after six months of state benefits have run out. The president's jobs bill would reauthorize the federal benefits, which are set to expire in January. Republicans have said, however, that they'd be happy to encourage states to implement Bridge to Work without reauthorizing the federal benefits.

Bridge to Work is modeled on state schemes like Georgia Works, which labor advocates have long decried as exploitive and which have not been proven to put the jobless back to work. The programs have been popular with businesses because they reduce hiring costs.

But not every business. McConnell testified that he is familiar with various government programs designed to encourage hiring because AlliedBarton fills a ton of entry-level positions that states find useful for reemployment services. He said wage subsidies, which are also part of the administration's American Jobs Act, would be a much better way to boost employment.

"From a straight business standpoint we like employing people. We want to hire them. We want to pay them. We want them to be accountable to us as employees," McConnell said in an interview with HuffPost. "Generally speaking, it also can be a tricky human resources dynamic to have people doing similar types of work and some are paid, some are unpaid, some are still on unemployment. That's not a clean recipe for a happy workforce."

CLARIFICATION: McConnell is an independent contractor, not a spokesman for AlliedBarton. A company spokesman said that McConnell has consulted with AlliedBarton in the past, but was not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. The spokesman said the company is supportive of programs that put unemployed Americans back to work and that AlliedBarton is currently reviewing the proposed Bridge to Work plan.

Arthur Delaney is the author of "A People's History of the Great Recession," HuffPost's first e-book.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's proposal to let businesses train the unemployed without having to pay them is "a no-go proposition" for at least one big employer. President Obama's "Bridg...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's proposal to let businesses train the unemployed without having to pay them is "a no-go proposition" for at least one big employer. President Obama's "Bridg...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's proposal to let businesses train the unemployed without having to pay them is "a no-go proposition" for at least one big employer. President Obama's "Bridg...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's proposal to let businesses train the unemployed without having to pay them is "a no-go proposition" for at least one big employer. President Obama's "Bridg...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 279
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CoronaDischarge 04:30 PM on 10/06/2011
Of course this is the case for some businesses. Security guards, heck. Who would want to ride on an airplane, or undergo open heart surgery at the hands of a no-pay trainee doctor or airline pilot? 

It rather is not the point when it comes to other jobs that can be productive, and can teach skills and be useful in assessing the abilities of new workers. Perhaps it exploits ... a built in appeal  Read More...
04:23 PM on 10/11/2011
How can they expect people to learn a job in a few weeks? If this is true why do executives get free training while they are paid to produce work, get flown all over the world for seminars and such? Shouldn't they have to pay for this? If not, they can do it on the weekends of their free time.
The whole system is unfunctionable.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jaredbrain
11:59 PM on 10/08/2011
the whole thing is indentured servitude. companies can bounce unemployed people around every few months and we never have to work for them. plus now we will all have to work for free for someone for two months before we start getting PAID
07:13 PM on 10/08/2011
Notice that Obama will never propose an end to work visas, a cut to immigration, and an end to NAFTA and free trade with communist China. He never will.

Obama likes your wages going down. He likes you being insecure. Just not this insecure. Democrats believe in regulation, they don't believe in American workers.
04:39 PM on 10/07/2011
In Germany this has turned into a huge mess. Over here we have "euro jobs" where employers stump up an overhead fee of a euro or two in return they have an unemployed person work for them. The unemployed must accept the position, or take a cut in unemployment. The idea is that the companies will then hire the employees after the training period is over, this rarely happens. The companies then just get another unemployed person and starts over without having to do any hiring. It's usually training for menial jobs like packing goods or lawn care. It has many negative effects, it ruins the job market for the job seekers by distorting the cost of labor, completely demoralizes the unemployed, and is slowly destroying the successful on the job training program culture in Germany.

McConnell makes quite a few good points, is at least talking straight.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Timma
...paulatim crescam...
03:10 PM on 10/07/2011
When big corporations say no to this kind of proposal, it kind of says it all - They could give a rats behind about small business and economic recovery.
photo
Ed Baker
Militant Moderate
02:28 PM on 10/07/2011
If the training period could be longer than 8 weeks, I might consider it. I can't hire the unemployed now. There have been far too many changes to our business and we have a 0% error business. I can only hire people from other firms. If an unemployed person were to apply and we could train them for 60 to 90 days, they might be qualified to work here.

But as of right now, I'm not interested in anyone who is currently unemployed.

Eight weeks would not be near enough to get them up to speed.

So, I'll continue what I'm doing.
10:25 AM on 10/07/2011
It's a dumb idea from the get go. Face it, if an employer needs another employee they will hire one and if they don't need another employee they won't hire one.
08:07 AM on 10/07/2011
I'm still having trouble understanding how people still vote republican!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:14 AM on 10/07/2011
I'm sure you have trouble understanding a lot of things.

It's okay. We'll take care of you, too. Say hello to your nanny-state.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Maxiesid
08:22 AM on 10/07/2011
When a republican acts like you are stupid because you dont understand how anyone could possibly be so gullible that they would vote against their own better interests, it is always a reaffirmation of what we already know about their intellectual capacity. And when they say things like "it's okay, we'll take care of you too" What it means is that if you fall on hard times, you will be left to starve, die of treatable diseases, and if you manage to make enough money to get by, they will want half of it because it isn't fair to ask their corporate masters to pay for anything, and they still deserve to have THEIR benefits.
The point is, they are the lowest of the low information voters, but they have been told that they are the only ones that understand the truth, and they buy it . The thing that gets me is that they really believe that Americans will allow them to take over our country as if we have no choice. It is going to make them SOO unhappy when President Obama starts his next term in office!
08:56 AM on 10/07/2011
This is an Obama administration proposal....
08:06 AM on 10/07/2011
We should have a jobs program in public works. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us. Roads, water delivery systems, public lands all need attention and resources. Why would we set up a program to benefit private companies? Use the energy and resources to set up public works programs.

Obama, I will vote for you against any republican currently in the rat pack running, but you are pandering to the republicans waaaay too much. Didn't you ever learn in the school yard that you can't placate bullies? They will never accept your ideas even if they originated them. Stop trying to win republican approval and just do what is right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vippy
Carpe Diem!
07:53 AM on 10/07/2011
For the unemployed in Alabama there are job openings the illegals have abandoned. And it should be the same in other states. Put Americans back to work but no, Obama wants the illegals and then for Americans work for free!
08:06 AM on 10/07/2011
Those jobs pay less than minimum wage, so the employer cannot hire american workers. I am against the Bridge to Work program as well, I think if a hires someone; they should pay them. Not paying them because they are on unemployment is expoiting workers, and gives the employer no incentive to hire.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vippy
Carpe Diem!
08:13 AM on 10/07/2011
As I said yesterday, there are hardly any family farms left. The rich are buying them up, get government subsidies, and then fly in with their plane when paying the workers. Of course, they would have to pay up, offer a decent wage, but that may cut into their profits and we can't have that, right?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Tarlton
06:23 AM on 10/07/2011
Sure this is the goal on Republicans...cheap labor and slave labor. So I guess they are getting their wish....on our way to 3rd world status...I understand that people are receiving unemployment benefits and I'm not against them doing something in exchange, but it should be for the public...not providing private companies with a free labor pool paid for by tax payers. Another backwards way to give more breaks to business and screwing people over.
01:49 AM on 10/07/2011
Okay...so according to the Repubs no businesses want the Bridge to Work, the Tax Credits for hiring the unemployed, or the tax credit for rasing wages. Thats a good thing...since no one wants it...and no one will take advantage of it...they should pass it ASAP.

After all, they can finally pass a bill that won't cost a dime. No need to balance the budget, no need to cut spending to off set the cost...since no company will use it there will not be a cost.

Problem solved...pass the bill.
01:08 AM on 10/07/2011
it may be morally and spiritually better to live under the bridge than be a slave in bridge to work, especially if you already know all about how to work and have always been a good and well-paid worker.
08:57 AM on 10/07/2011
They are still receiving a paycheck,,,,from the taxpayers. You got that part, right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:40 PM on 10/07/2011
Are they not receiving money that was taken from their paycheck's when they had a job for this specific purpose? If so, why should they have to work for money they already earned from previous employment? I have received unemployment once in my life for less than 6 months. I always opted to just immediately find another job because unemployment benefits are typically not enough for anyone to live on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:45 PM on 10/07/2011
An *addendum in case anyone may try to imply that I would want to just languish away living on employment benefits. I prefer to work.
12:24 AM on 10/07/2011
Perhaps it's time to use the same industrial policy that China employs. That would be if you want to sell certain products in China you must manufacture them there.
01:09 AM on 10/07/2011
...and subsidize your chosen industries all the way - like China does with solar panel mfg.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
12:16 AM on 10/07/2011
Why train an American when you can train an Immigrant with an H1-B, H2-B or H3 B visa for 1/3 of what they would have to pay American Citizens ??????

Got to love the Corporations !! Attention Corporate yes men ! Your Stock Holders have Kids, Grandkids and furture Great Grandchildren that will need jobs. So while you making claims of protecting Stock Holders stake in your Corporation are you really doing them Justice ?