Bill Overview
Title: Manufacturing Jobs for Veterans Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Labor, as part of the Veteran's Workforce Investment Program, to implement the Veterans Manufacturing Employment Program to award competitive grants to three states for the establishment and administration of a State Manufacturing Employment Program. Such program must provide grants to manufacturing employers and joint-labor management organizations that provide eligible veterans with training, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and training that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential. Eligible veterans are those who are employed by a manufacturing employer and enrolled or participating in a specified training, on-the-job training, apprenticeship, or certification class.
Sponsors: Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans employed in manufacturing and participating in training programs
Estimated Size: 200000
- This bill specifically targets veterans, a distinct group within the population.
- It focuses on veterans who are currently employed by manufacturing employers.
- The bill involves the distribution of grants for training and apprenticeship opportunities specifically for these veterans, which suggests a focus on upskilling and improving job prospects within the manufacturing sector.
- Only veterans who are involved in some form of training, such as on-the-job training or apprenticeships, are eligible, narrowing the target population further to this subset.
- The bill is limited to the United States, as it is a federal law affecting state programs and U.S. veterans.
Reasoning
- Given the budget constraints and the target population, the policy will likely focus on a limited set of states and manufacturing sectors initially, thus impacting only a fraction of the target population.
- Eligible veterans working outside the selected states or not participating in specific training programs may see no direct benefit from the policy.
- The focus on training and apprenticeship means that the primary effects will be on skills development, which could positively impact job satisfaction and career prospects for those involved.
- Veterans who are older or transitioning out of the workforce might feel less impact, as the policy is primarily geared towards those in active employment and training.
Simulated Interviews
Machinist (Ohio)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could really help vets like me get the training we need to advance in our careers.
- Access to grants for apprenticeships would make it easier for me to gain more specialized skills.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Electrical Technician (North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds like a good initiative but I'm concerned about how it will be managed and if it will actually reach those who need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Quality Control Specialist (Michigan)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this policy to affect me as I'm not in any training program right now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Welder (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having just completed my training, I think this could have been beneficial knock on effects for others, but won't directly impact me now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Production Manager (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great that this policy focuses on providing skills to veterans, but it seems tailored more towards entry-level positions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Forklift Operator (Illinois)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is timely. Grants could make these programs more accessible and beneficial for my career path.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Assembly Line Worker (Indiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy makes apprenticeships more available, I might finally find the opportunity to enroll. Sounds promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
CNC Machine Operator (Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs like these could really open up more advancement opportunities for people like me in the manufacturing field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone nearing retirement, I don't think this policy will impact me directly, but it could help younger vets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Machine Operator (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the grants cover tuition and living expenses, that would be a huge relief and incentive to enroll in more training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The success of the program largely depends on effective implementation by the selected states.
- Flexibility in training programs to match employer needs will be crucial for successful employment outcomes.
- Coordination between federal and state governments and manufacturing employers is essential to maximize program benefits.