Recently, the Texas Back to Work initiative (TBTW) of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) received criticism for paying employers to do what they were going to do anyway – hire.  TBTW was created to help put Texans who are receiving unemployment benefits back to work.  Basically it works like this:  an employer that hires someone who has been receiving unemployment insurance benefits and who made $15 per hour or less on their last job, and retains them for 120 days, can receive up to $2,000.

The criticism centered on the fact that the workforce system is paying employers to do something they were going to do anyway - hire.  That may well be true.  But let’s look at in a bit of a different way.  Under extended benefits, a person can now receive unemployment for over 90 weeks.  The average weekly benefit in Texas is about $265.  A person who draws unemployment for 90 weeks could earn $23,850.  The average duration in Texas for UI benefits is about 17.4 weeks.  Multiply that by the average weekly benefit ($265), and it amounts to $4,611.

If providing an employer a $2,000 incentive helps puts a UI recipient back to work quicker it would seem that the program pays for itself by potentially saving benefits that would otherwise be paid to UI claimants.  In the long run, it may also help ease the tax burden paid by employers.

Texas Back to Work is putting qualified UI recipients back to work and off the benefit rolls, and isn’t that what we all want?

Write Comment (0 comments)

The House and Senate appear to be nearing agreement on tax credits for employers that hire and retain unemployed workers. 

Can tax credits really create jobs or is this more Washington theater? 

Jobs are created by markets – demand for goods and services.   Job tax credits don’t seem to have any relationship to stimulating markets.  However, they appear to simply be rewarding employers for doing something they were going to do anyway.   If a tax credit helps an employer decide between equally good candidates, and it gives an edge to someone who is receiving unemployment benefits, then it may have some marginal value and is worth doing. 

The real issue that our politicians need to be addressing from a public policy perspective is how they can (or can they?) help spur market demand for goods and services – domestically and internationally – so that employers need to expand their workforce.  It’s easy to chew around the edges and come up with gimmicks than it is to tackle the real problems. 

There are a lot of out-of-work people that need those in Washington to start dealing with the difficult stuff.

Write Comment (0 comments)

On Monday, January 18, we will take time to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an icon for human rights.

On August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech, which is one of the most recognized parts of his legacy.  To quote from that speech:  “Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood."

The words Dr. King spoke in 1963 still resonate today.  To borrow from Robert Frost, there are “miles to go before I sleep.”   There are still miles to go before Dr. King’s dream is fully realized.  His legacy lives on as do his words and deeds.  Take time to reflect on Monday and think of what you can do to help lift our nation.

Write Comment (0 comments)

Workforce Solutions-Capital Area is planning for the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide services to eligible youth under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 2010.  Approximately $1.5 million in funding will be made available.

WIA Youth services are aimed at low-income youth ages 14 to 21, and who fall within one or more of the following categories:  deficient in basic literacy skills, school dropout, homeless/runaway/foster youth, pregnant or parenting, offender, or require additional assistance to complete school or to secure and hold employment.

Allowable services include: tutoring, study-skills training, and instruction leading to the completion of secondary school; alternative school services; leadership skills development; occupational training; work experience, including job shadowing and internships; summer employment linked to academic and occupational learning; and life-skills training.

At least 60% of the funds must be spent on out-of-school youth (dropouts or youth who have graduated high school but still require additional assistance in securing employment).   So of the approximately $1.5 million that will be made available, a minimum of $900,000 must be spent on out-of-school youth, leaving $400,000 for in-school youth.

How should these funds be invested?  How can they best be used to serve the youth of our community?

You can help us plan for the use of these funds by sharing with us your opinions on the following questions:

• Should the funds be used exclusively for out-of-school youth or should they continue to be split 60% out-of-school and 40% in-school youth or some other percentage split?
• Should the funds be limited to certain age groups rather than all youth between the ages of 14 to 21?

Let us know what you think.

Write Comment (3 comments)