Work Apprenticeships

Caleb Moss's workday starts twice a week at 4:30 in the morning. He reports to his post at a tool and die company. Under the guidance of a mentor, he turns steel into high-precision tools and molds used throughout the plant.

A few hours later, Moss heads to Pulaski Technical College for a full day of instruction, engaging in math class and hands-on training on machines similar to those Moss uses on the job. He will get paid for his time spent in both locations. Moss is working on a three-year apprenticeships in tool and die. It's a strategy his employer has embraced as it seeks to fill critical gaps in its workforce.

As one of his limited good policies, President Trump is betting on apprenticeships for economic improvement. The goal is to increase the number of active apprenticeships to 1 million, up from today’s 700,000. It's one of the few policies embraced by former President Joe Biden that Trump appears to wholeheartedly support.

The idea behind apprenticeships is simple: By combining on-the-job training with classroom instruction, employers can nurture talent to fill skills gaps and give workers not just jobs, but long-lasting careers.

Decades ago, most employers would train their hires instead of depending on schools and tax dollars to do the job for them. They still should. As a former employer, I wanted to train my help. That way, there were no preconceived methods for which I might have to retrain. Why? Because school instruction rarely matches real-world situations.

Other developed economies, including Germany and Switzerland, have used this earn-while-you-learn model to fill workforce needs in a variety of industries. In the U.S., however, it has mostly been limited to construction trades. Federal funding – which is not how it should be paid for - has helped to grow the number of registered apprenticeships in the U.S. by close to 80% over the past decade. While I fully advocate for apprenticeships, they should be paid for by the company that will benefit from such action, not by the taxpayers in general. A cashier, while struggling him/herself, shouldn't have their tax dollars going to a corporation providing higher skilled, higher paying labor.

Almost a year after Trump signed the executive order, there are questions, even doubts, about his level of commitment. Last year, amid DOGE cuts, the Trump administration canceled millions of dollars' worth of contracts with organizations working to grow apprenticeships in clean energy and other sectors. Ambiguously, I have to say, “Good!” for the reason mentioned in the last paragraph.

The U.S. Labor Department claims apprenticeships yield a 144% return on investment, with increased productivity and lower turnover. It also claims apprenticeships reduce workers' reliance on social assistance programs.

As someone who advocates for self-sufficiency, at both a personal and business level, I would prefer self-funding by companies in need of workers. On the other hand, governments waste far more money on far worse projects. Such government expenditures would be more acceptable if we didn’t waste taxpayer funds elsewhere. Till then, it’s just more social engineering at taxpayer expense.