Doctoral Dissertation

Title

Union and Non-Union Labor:

A comparative study in how each value the vocational product in Delaware.

By:

Patrick Wallace Lloyd

20 Sinnickson Lane

Pennsville, NJ 08070

pwlloyd@verizon.net

November 8, 2005

iii

Dedication and Acknowledgements

Without question, I owe my parents an unending debt for their support and dedication each day since they chose to adopt me in 1960. To my mother, whose expectations and formidable opinions continue to create no nonsense, pragmatic views of our world. To her undying generosity at all levels; nothing is too much to ask and most times did not have to be asked at all. Allowing her to purchase my texts and doctoral garb was a considerable lesson in humility and became the purposeful glue I needed when I began to unravel.

To my father, undoubtedly the most important man in my life; he seems to tweak my consciousness exactly when needed. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he is right almost each and every time. His teachings of craftsmanship, honor, morals and ethics direct me to want to do my best and do what is right.

For Dr. David Kolenich, my advisor at Breyer State University, I would like to acknowledge his response and foresight in providing a foundation for success. He allowed for expression of thought and intentions, never overcomplicating an already daunting academic endeavor.

For my high school baseball coach who shall remain nameless. His unfair unilateral actions as a coach taught me in an early age to never allow another man beat me down. I carry that single lesson as a daily tenet for fairness toward others, ethics and personal motivation.

My children, who live and learn with me, are my inspiration for the present and future. Without them, I would not have embraced the true purposes of education.

And for my wife Lisa, who understands me sometimes more than myself. She believes in me, even though living through a few "learning,

financial and career setbacks." Her faith is unyielding, comforting and exhilarating.

Acknowledging last but not least, our God, whose grace continues to shine on my charmed life. Making time for Him, work, family, rest, recreation and academics has been a fluid balancing act that I can only master on brief occasions. Lastly, I thank Him for reconciliation and repentance. My hope is to use both less and less as time goes on, but I don’t count on it.

Abstract

This doctoral dissertation utilizes quantitative and qualitative research to compare unionized and non-union labor’s position and support toward Delaware’s vocational education students and alumni. Specifically, current school-to-work initiatives (STW) in secondary vocational and technical education system will be analyzed. The thesis will also analyze the comparative support of union and non-union labor with respect to mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment.

Further, an argument will be presented not to criticize any form of labor, but to provide a foundation for improvement in worthwhile participation and create a springboard for additional research.

vii

Table of Contents

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT vi

TITLE PAGE AND FORMAT

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Introduction 2

Problem Statement 3

Proposed Hypotheses for Testing 4

Motive for Selection of Topic 5

What Study Hopes to Prove or Disprove 6

Goals of Dissertation 7

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction 10

Labor Support of Cooperative Employment 12

Training Opportunities with Union Employers 15

Union Opportunity to Participate 17

Government Assuring Participation 19

Vocational and Technical Student Qualifications 22

viii

Participation Criteria 25

III. METHODOLOGY

Present Day Model 29

Correlation Tests 30

Correlation Conclusions 31

Conceptual Employer 32

Survey Instrument Development 33

Survey Instrument Dissemination and Collection 34

IV. FINDINGS

Qualifying Questions 35

Survey Instrument Conclusions 36

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RETROSPECTION,

RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Summary & Conclusions 41

Retrospection 47

Recommendations & Implications 49

REFERENCES 53

APPENDIX 56

TABLES 65

Title

Union and Non-Union Labor: A comparative study of how each values the vocational education product in Delaware.

Format

The format of this proposed dissertation will follow the guidelines set forth by Breyer State University in its document entitled "Thesis/Dissertation Guidelines."

Chapter 1 – Introduction/Problem Statement

Introduction

Numerous research studies suggest that there is a correlation between school to work (STW) initiatives such as mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment and increased employee satisfaction, production and edification. The employee value is not limited to simply job skill, but extends into critical soft skills and long-term employee success. The federal government and many states have created, funded and presently support school-to-work initiatives in vocational and technical high schools. Delaware’s cooperative employment coordinator’s and vocational specialist’s main functions are to secure, promote, and monitor STW.

The study focuses on empirically based exploratory research on school-to-work initiatives with a focus on comparative participation by groups of employers. Its intent is in determining whether or not a significant inverse relationship exists between union labor and other groups. Rationales and justifications will be explored as well as fairness and equality tenets.

Problem Statement

A political and philosophical polarity exists between union and non-union labor. This is more apparent in the construction trades. There seems to be an inequality of opportunity and discrimination that exists for high school students who choose to participate in school-to-work initiatives. The problem exists between the groups of employers; it exists between union labor and all other groups of employers including non-union, private and government.

Proposed Hypotheses for Testing

Developing support for the following hypotheses is dependent on the format of the survey instrument and its ability to elicit the required empirical data.

Hypothesis I: Unionized construction labor groups support mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment STW initiatives.

Hypothesis II: Non-union trade groups support mentoring, job-shadowing, and cooperative employment STW initiatives.

Hypothesis III: Training opportunities for STW initiatives in union setting are equal or better than with other groups.

Hypothesis IV: Unions have the same opportunity for participation as other groups.

Hypothesis V: Government could assure that union labor would participate in STW.

Hypothesis VI: Vocational and technical students are a highly qualified future labor force.

Hypothesis VII: The criteria for STW participation are objective. The criteria for union participation and membership are subjective.

Motive for Selection of Topic

My present position in education is Career Training and Employment Coordinator for the New Castle County School District, specifically Delcastle Technical High School. This full-time secondary vocational-technical high school located in Wilmington, Delaware includes twenty-two career pathways and houses a population of approximately 1650 students. Two sister schools also exist, one having approximately 1000 students, the other less than 800. Due to need and market share of

applicants, a fourth school is presently under construction and will house an additional 1000 students.

There appears to be a double standard between construction trade unions and other groups when attempting to secure safe and highly training-related cooperative employment for secondary vocational students engaged in the construction trades. The intent of cooperative employment is the engagement of hands-on training in a real time, real world workplace. This augments theory-based lessons and modeling activities in the classroom. The operative word is training, not employment.

What this study hopes to prove or disprove.

This exploratory study hopes to demonstrate that non-union labor embraces STW initiatives in secondary vocational-technical schools in Delaware. Unionized labor, on the other hand, enjoying equal or greater

resources, does not participate for subjective reasons. The study also hopes to find that employees having gone through STW initiatives enjoy their work more or find out sooner in their career life that they don’t enjoy this type of work and can realign their educational/training objectives earlier and more efficiently. An added benefit is the economic savings and efficiency of education institutions in Delaware.

Goals of Dissertation

This study acknowledges the need for research on the relationship between labor groups with respect to school to work initiatives in Delaware high schools. With this need in mind, the study is designed to meet the following goals:

• To demonstrate the effects that studies conducted over multiple labor groups and single labor groups, have on the products of vocational-technical students and alumni.

• To demonstrate new techniques for collecting sensitive primary data can be obtained for conducting further empirical school-to-work studies.

• To compare empirically selected key stakeholder groups against those generally listed in literature.

• To develop a new characterization of school-to-work employer participation plan that will maximize effectiveness without compromising student safety and participation.

• To develop a successful survey instrument consisting of a set of surrogate, yet ethical questions for each hypothesis studied.

• To demonstrate the improvements necessary for increasing employer participation in STW.

Chapter 2 - Review of Related Literature

Introduction:

Since a major thrust of the study was to compare relative participation between union and non-union construction trades groups and

to demonstrate the improvements necessary for increasing employer participation in STW, a review of pertinent literature centered around the following areas: participation studies, government guidelines and law, historical models of STW, current union and non-union guides and texts, and anticipated future labor and education trends.

It was also necessary to confirm that vocational schools in Delaware participate in STW, and that cooperative education is the capstone program. In addition to student-found employment, many schools offer work-based learning experiences, with cooperative education being the most common form of work-based learning, followed by job shadowing, internships, and mentoring (NCES, 2000, p. 87).

A review of the literature related to union data and subjectivity of participation and membership revealed that there was a lack of available public related information; however, there was enough similarity to other

union practices that a number of studies, interviews and articles have been cited as a basis for development of this study.

In School-Community Partnerships, (Parsons, 2005, p. 1) revealed that: There is no single answer to the question "What is School-to-Work?" It establishes the infrastructure for a system that is based on existing models and effort such as career academics, youth apprenticeship, Tech Prep, and cooperative education.

Unionized and non-union labor support cooperative employment.

The researcher reviewed Delaware state policies and guidelines for employer participation in cooperative employment and company participation lists of vocational high schools in Delaware and found no significant evidence of union participation. Conversely, each cooperative

employment experience enjoyed by 12^{th grade Delaware vocational students was linked to a non-union employer.}

Although there are no clear-cut reasons as to this disparity of participation, Principles and Strategies for School-to-Work Sustainability suggested how change can happen and why it won’t. The publication (AYPF, 2004, p. 31) names all entities that must be involved for success. They include: "Local Institutions: schools, school districts, postsecondary institutions community organizations, workforce invest boards and youth councils. States: Governors, legislatures, state board of education for both K-12 and postsecondary and workforce development agencies. Federal Government: The Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the National Skill Standards Boards. National and regional organizations: Various education and training memberships, quasi-governmental, research and policy support groups. Employer associations: The US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Retail Association and their state and local networks."

The italicized names above are problematic in supporting or mandating union involvement. Examples include that over 90 percent of vocational high school teachers and support staff belong to their local, state and NEA union (DSEA, n.d.). There are card holding union members that are instructors in grades 9-12. Eight of thirteen present New Castle County, Delaware council members are card holding union members. The current chairman of the DACCVE (Delaware Council of Vocational Education), Mr. Samuel Lathem, is also the Delaware President of the AFL-CIO (DACCVE, 2005, p. 501).

Further support of this model in a more comprehensive form is outlined (Harmon, 1998, p. 1) by stating: "Some may see the school-to-work system benefiting only the individual student and the potential employer. Yet, the ultimate success of school-to-work partnerships might

be in connecting students to their community and future work by giving them a better understanding of the place in which they live---and may someday work. A school to work opportunities system is more successful if it involves the community to set goals, utilizes the community as a learning laboratory, engages students in meaningful service-learning activities, etc."

Training Opportunities for Cooperative Education Students with Union Employers.

Unions repeatedly announce that their training methods and safety programs are superior to that of their competition. Many union halls host their own training and apprenticeship courses in house. In Delaware, this is true of both the IBEW Local 313 and the Sheet Metal Worker’s Union.

Being perhaps an obvious observation, it should be noted that you have to be a union member to participate in their apprenticeships. You can’t even purchase their curriculum of books, they say it’s proprietary (D. Derrickson, personal communication, October 18, 2005).

Also, union labor proclaims they have superior mechanics and work ethics. If that is the case, it is evident that cooperative education students are missing out on by not enjoying STW initiatives with union labor. These penchants were echoed (NCES, 2000, p. 87). By the U.S. Department of Education that reported that "three-fourths of high school students in the United States enter the workforce without baccalaureate degrees. Work-based learning, which is modeled after the time-honored apprenticeship concept, integrates theoretical instruction with structured on-the-job training, and this approach, combined with school-based learning, can be very effective in engaging student interest, enhancing skill acquisition,

developing positive work attitudes, and preparing youths for high-skill, high-wage careers."

There is a most successful model revealed in "The School to Work Revolution" (Olsen, 1977, p. 163-166), that described a program with conglomerate NYNEX Corporation and IBEW Local No. 2222 in Boston. The union agreed that student interns would work alongside a mentor to help complete his or her job assignments, that that there would be no risk that student would replace workers. Students would be paid the starting wage for whatever job position they held. And once they began working full time, during the summer, they could join the union and pay union dues of about $3.40 per week. In addition, the mentors meet once a month on company time to iron out any problems, and they are able to visit the school during their work day to collaborate with teachers.

Viewing this venture as a long-term strategy, NYNEX reported that in the first year of the program which employed seven students, "Six

planned to enroll in postsecondary education while continuing their connection with NYNEX and one hoped to work for the company full time."

Unions have the same opportunity to participation as other groups.

It is reasonable to believe that unions can afford to participate in STW. In the Union Member’s Complete Guide, (Mauer, 2001, p. 110) confirmed that "…you earn more money than you would have without a union. Unionized workers on average earn 30 percent more than non-union workers." The BAT Study gives us a potential reason in that "Extensive involvement of trade unions in apprenticeship training is alleged by some to inhibit training by limiting new entries and preserving better paying jobs for union members (Bilginsoy, 1998, p. 1)."

If size it to be a consideration, the Union Member’s Complete Guide indicated that "Unions are a group of people banding together for a common interest. Organized unions are one of the largest social

movements in American today, a movement of close to 17 million men and women." They are a relatively affluent group that "earn more money, enjoy more benefits, and have greater job security than their non-union counterparts (Mauer, 2000, p. 2).

Unions may be missing a golden opportunity by not participating in STW. A staunch union member (Hofacker, personal communication November 3, 2005) said "All unions I know of think that global competition and not building and buying in the U.S. is as anti-union and anti-American as it gets." In Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000, (NCES, 2000, p. v), another empirically-based point of view states that: "Increased global competition has spurred some U.S. businesses to create high performance workplaces, relying on flexible and decentralized work practices and multi-skilled workers." "One-quarter of surveyed employers reported participating in a school-to-work partnership, and 42 percent reported providing at least one formal work-based learning

activity. Larger firms were more likely than smaller firm to report these different practices (NCES 2000, pp. 89,196-7)."

Government could assure that union labor would participate in STW.

The 1990 commission on the skill of American Workforce reported that "America may have the worst school-to-work transition system of any advanced industrial country. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 concluded that "…a majority of American high school students approach adulthood without the skills to sustain themselves economically or succeed in postsecondary education (NCREL, pp. 1,4,5)."

At the same time, the U.S. economy faces a serious challenge from international competition. Too many American companies do not make the investments in human resources and training needed for a high-performance workplace (NCREL, p. 4).

Schools are culpable as well. A major STW implementation pitfall is that "schools tend to make plans and then try to "sell" those plans to the rest of the community. It is extremely important for key stakeholders to be involved in the collaborative planning from the beginning of the process to ensure that the entire school community is committed to the implementation of school-to-work transition plans NCREL, p. 14)." There is no government standard mandating school and union labor collaboration.

There is an existing program that, if amended, could require union participation in STW, particularly cooperative education. The 123rd Delaware General Assembly (1966) passed legislation requiring the State Board for Vocational Education to assume all costs for related apprenticeship training and provide administration and supervision necessary to carry out this responsibility (Dunkle, 1979, p. 5). Monies are given in lump sum from the state to the vocational school districts. In turn,

"we use time sheets from instructors and add material costs. The raw budget is $450 per student per year of apprenticeship per 144 hour program. Union programs are typically higher. Union instructors only teach union apprenticeships, either at their location or ours. Union instructors can and do teach non-union apprenticeship classes (J. Potochney, personal communication, October 19, 2005)." Union and non-union apprenticeships never mix. Even when training is held in the same building, alternate night schedules are made for union and non-union training. Again, the union curriculum and materials (texts, etc.) remain proprietary.

Also, unions gain power from the government. "Well over one-third of organized labor now consists of government employees. But overall, the percentage of the American workforce that is unionized underwent a steady, decades-long decline as the twenty-first century approached (Mauer, pg. 109). Further, the government subsidizes union workers with

unemployment benefits, evidenced by compensation to workers who allegedly volunteer to take time off for reasons not associated with available work and retirees who take lump-sum pensions.

Vocational and technical students are a highly qualified future labor force who benefit from cooperative employment.

The New Castle County Vocational School District Survey (NCCVTSD, 2005, pp. 1-10), shows results for 1999-2004 as follows:

• Senior population has climbed from 667 to 714.

• Percentage of eligible co-op seniors has climbed from 73 to 86 percent.

• Percentage of eligible seniors employed is down from 88 to 75 percent.

• Percentage of senior population in related co-op has held steady at 62 percent.

• Percent of dropouts is .06%.

• Senior graduation rate has climbed from 94 to 96 percent.

• School attendance approaches 97%, the highest in Delaware.

The graduate follow survey, conducted at 6 months, reports.

• Full-time employed graduate rate is 40 percent.

• Full-time related employment rate is 28 percent.

• Full time post-secondary education of graduates is 48 percent.

Participating employers surveyed tended to rate their interns’ skills as being comparable to or better than those of their regular entry-level workers, particularly soft skills such as attitude and attendance. As evidence in the study named STW Making a Difference is Education confirms:

• "The majority of employers … who participated in work-based learning reported that these employees were superior to comparable new hires in terms of productivity and attitude."

• "School to work students, regardless of their risk of school failure, have comparable or better attendance and graduation rates than students in comparison groups."

• "The jobs that students obtain through School-to-Work tend to be different from and of higher quality than the jobs they would normally get."

• "…the difference between co-op and just a regular job is that they advise you along the way."

• "Graduates of school-to-work programs have better labor market outcomes than do other high school graduates."

• "Students state that STW activities make them more interested in school and help them understand why school is important."

• "School to work brings adults and youth together (Hughes, Bailey & Mechur, 2001)."

The criteria for STW participation are objective. The criteria for union participation and membership are subjective.

With few exceptions, all vocational students have equal access to available STW programs such as mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment. Reasons that unions choose not to participate vary but are rooted in the principles of their brotherhoods and political agenda.

Green (1996) wrote that "the effect of unions on the average relative wage is zero. The likeliness effect of unions in the distribution of income is to redistribute it among workers…in either or both of two ways. First, the money wages of non-union workers maybe held down by the reallocation of labor produced by unionism; second, the non-union workers may have to pay more for the products produced by union labor." Progressive Herbert Croly criticized them on just this score, complaining that "unionist leaders frequently offer verbal homage to the great American

principle of equal rights, but what they really demand is the abandonment of that principle. What they want is an economic and political order which will discriminate in favor of unions and against non-union labor."

Labor economist Orley Ashenfelter argued in 1985 that "until better evidence is available, it may be more reasonable to conclude that unions have little or no effect on productivity."

By his own admission, Mauer (2001) reports:

• "Simply stated, the greater the percentage of employees who are unionized, the more power each union has to win and enforce good contracts and to be an influential part of the process to enact a labor friendly legislative agenda."

• "What goes on in the world of politics has a direct connection to the union’s ability to advance and protect the member’s interests.

It is valuable to analyze what we teach our students. Vocational curriculum is intentionally designed to foster abstract and contextual learning. At the same time, STW age students have incredible focus toward their impending independence. Cooperative employment punctuates independence as participating students are free to attend work and earn financial and personal rewards. This is counter-intuitive to the union labor model, where solidarity and resource sharing are key tenets. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1903) characterizes it well in his writing, Self-Reliance:

There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, or worse, as his portion; that through the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, not does he know until he has tried.

Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. (p. 43, 49-50)

Chapter 3 – Methodology

This study is based on exploratory and comparative research. The study utilizes each methodology according to its degree of relevance, with respect to the following steps:

Present day model of school to work initiatives for construction trades in Delaware.

STW initiatives for secondary vocational schools generally include mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment.

Mentoring: A student is paired with an adult "role model" who can help him/her with educational and career development and decisions. Some of the roles and responsibilities of a mentor include: informing the student about workplace norms and customs; providing caring, consistent support and guidance; and setting high expectations and regularly reviewing progress.

Job-Shadowing: Generally a one-day visit to a workplace designed so students can observe someone at working a specific career field. Students do not perform any work during a job-shadowing experience.

Cooperative Employment: A program that combines career and technical coursework with part-time paid work experience during the summer and 12th grade school year.

Correlation test using four variables.

a) Ten non-union construction trades employers that significantly and historically contributed to STW initiatives in Delaware in the last five years were randomly chosen.

b) Ten non-union construction trades employers that have not significantly contributed to STW initiatives in Delaware in the last five years were randomly chosen.

c) Steps a) and b) were repeated for union employers/organizations.

d) A classification list was developed that included most construction trades employers that engaged in school-to-work initiatives in

the last five years. Construction trade union and non-union affiliation were also categorized.

Conclusions from correlation results.

Using Delaware STW data yielded over one hundred twenty non-union construction employers that engaged in STW, particularly cooperative employment. Conversely, only two employers that employed a combination of union and non-union construction workers were identified as participators. No evidence of participation in cooperative employment was found for union employers or organizations. For the purposed of this study, ten construction union halls and ten union construction contractors were randomly chosen for dissemination of the survey instrument.

Conceptual school-to-work employer prototype.

As findings will show in Chapter IV, the typical employer is large in size, has a diversified workforce and plans long-term with regard to his potential

renewable workforce. In addition, he has a stake in the welfare of his community. The conceptual prototypical school-to-work employer would share these traits and more. Additionally, this employer would be versed in professional development, workplace safety and sharing of all educational resources. There would be no affiliation barriers, and focus would not be rooted in work, yet in training and the social value of connecting youth with adults in the workplace. Perceived personal benefits of the employer would be community based with values of sharing knowledge freely with students, schools, colleagues and the industry. Lastly, competition and survival pressures would be replaced with self-reliance concepts.

Empirical employer/employee survey instrument.

The instrument was developed with questions derived from the conceptual prototype of participating employers and/or employees (Appendix A). The present day model of STW participation in Delaware was using in the beginning as defining terms frequently used in the instrument. What followed were a

series of eight qualifying questions. One qualitative question as to philosophy of trade affiliation was offered.

Thereafter, a series of methodical and quantitative questions were asked relating to employer/employee participation in STW. Also included were qualitative questions that asked opinions of perceived problems in participation, both with union and non-union employers and employees. An open-ended question was last to provide for commentary on anything the respondent cared to share, but specifically focused on potential items or categories of participation not included in the instrument.

Survey instrument dissemination and collection to non-union and union employers and employees.

Survey instrument packets were developed and either mailed via USPS or hand delivered. These packets included an introduction letter, the nine-page survey instrument, a self-addressed stamped response/return envelope

addressed to the researcher’s business address. An additional form was included offering the respondent the opportunity to receive results from the study. A self-addressed stamped envelope of different color was included with the form. This envelope was addressed to the researcher’s residence to assure there would be no link to a survey instrument responder and the request for results.

Chapter 4 – Findings

Models, survey instruments, statistics, and tables of results are used to lend support for findings as they relate to the hypotheses.

General qualifying question results:

• The age range of respondents is consistent with literature; with the greatest concentrations in the 40-60 age brackets (Table FT-1).

• An overwhelming majority (76.8%) have a formal education level of high school (Table FT-2).

• Almost one-third of respondents make between $25000 and $50,000 per year. Other distribution of income is with norms. (Table FT-3).

• The study yielded 142 responses of 400 survey instruments disseminated. Non-union responses totaled 81 or 57%, union responses were 61 or 43% of the total (Table FT-4, FT 7A).

• Supervisors made up 28.9% of all respondents, principles accounted for 28.2% of the total. Deducting three retiree respondents, general worker respondents equaled 40.8%. (Table FT-7A-D).

Survey instrument conclusions (see Tables).

• Of two hundred disseminated surveys, 81 or 40.5% responded.

• Two-thirds of respondents feel that the merit shop philosophy of construction is best compared to only 7% that feel that non-union is best.

• 59% participated in mentoring.

• 56% participated in job-shadowing.

• 56% participated in co-op.

Survey instrument conclusions (union).

• Of two hundred disseminated surveys, 61 or 30.5% responded.

• Over 83% of respondents feel that the closed union shop philosophy of construction is best.

• 10% participated in mentoring.

• 10% participated in job-shadowing.

• 0% participated in co-op.

Survey instrument conclusions (both group and comparison).

• Of 400 disseminated surveys (two-hundred each union and non-union), 61 or 43% of respondents were union compared to 81 or 57% non-union respondents.

• 47% never participated in mentoring and 15% don’t know or are unfamiliar with mentoring.

• 58% never participated in job-shadowing and 17% don’t know or are unfamiliar with job-shadowing.

• 49% never participated in cooperative employment and 21% don’t know or are unfamiliar with cooperative employment.

• Just over 15% frequently participate in all three STW objectives.

• 66% think that unions should mentor.

• Problems with union engaging in mentoring:

o 44% labor agreements.

o 45% safety concerns.

o 16% membership requirements.

o 25% loss of productivity.

o 11% displaces a worker.

• 25% think that unions should participate in job-shadowing.

• Problems with union engaging in job shadowing:

o 39% labor agreements.

o 43% safety concerns.

o 24% appropriate sites.

o 11% loss of productivity.

o 3% displaces a worker.

• 49% think that unions should participate in cooperative employment.

• Problems with union engaging in cooperative employment:

o 58% labor agreements.

o 37% safety concerns.

o 28% membership requirements.

o 13% loss of productivity.

o 11% displaces a worker.

• 73% think that non-union should mentor.

• Problems with non-union engagement in mentoring:

o 44% safety concerns.

o 16% loss of productivity.

o 14% displaces a worker.

• 73% think that non-union should participate in job-shadowing.

• Problems with non-union engaging in job shadowing:

o 39% safety concerns.

o 23% not enough time.

o 13% loss of productivity.

• 64% think that non-union should participate in cooperative employment.

• Problems with non-union engaging in cooperative employment:

o 64% safety concerns.

o 16% loss of productivity.

o 7% displaces a worker.

Chapter 5

Summary, Conclusions, Retrospection, Recommendations & Implications

Summary and Conclusions.

The major thrust of the study was to utilize quantitative and qualitative research to compare unionized and non-union labor’s position and support toward Delaware’s vocational education students and alumni. Specifically, current school-to-work initiatives in secondary vocational and technical education system were analyzed. The thesis also analyzed the comparative support of union and non-union labor with respect to mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment through the development of the survey instrument. The results from literature and the survey instrument were processed with respect to the researcher’s seven hypotheses and, when possible and appropriate, empirical conclusions were drawn.

Hypothesis I: Unionized construction labor groups support mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment STW initiatives. There is evidence that union labor participates in job-shadowing activities, but only on larger projects where both union and non-union contractors are on site. Every cooperative employment experience enjoyed by a 12th grade vocational student was linked to

a non-union employer. Therefore, the hypothesis is only valid with regard to cooperative employment but cannot be generalized to other forms of STW. Only 10% of union survey respondents indicated that their employer has engaged in mentoring and job-shadowing in the last five years; zero participated in cooperative employment. With regards to mentoring, 66% of all surveyed feel that unions should participate; job shadowing- 25%; cooperative employment- 49%.

Hypothesis II: Non-union trade groups support mentoring, job-shadowing, and cooperative employment STW initiatives. Over 56% of non-union respondents said that their company has participated in all three STW initiatives.

Of those surveyed, almost three-quarters think that non-union should mentor or job-shadow, and 64% believe they should engage in cooperative employment.

Hypothesis III: Training opportunities for STW initiatives in union setting are equal or better than with other groups. "Unions have superior training,

mechanics and work ethics (Mauer, 2001). Unions also have the size advantage over non-union, which proves to be an advantage in participating in STW. Lack of training facilities or work sites was not a concern for union respondents.

Hypothesis IV: Unions have the same opportunity for participation as other groups. This is evidenced by the initiative of Boston based NYNEX Corporation and IBEW Local No. 2222. Also, union has, at minimum, proportional representation on NCCVTSD Construction Trades Task Force, the DAACVE, as well as local and state school/political boards. Since unions claim to be a relative affluent group that earn more money, enjoy more benefits and have great job security that their non-union counterparts, it stands to reason that are in an advanced position to participate in STW. This is true under a very important condition, which is that schools must do their part by seeking opportunities, educating union how it can be accomplished and continuously monitoring programs.

Hypothesis V: Government could assure that union labor would participate in STW. Since 1966, Delaware pays for all apprenticeship training and allows union apprenticeships to be a "closed shop". Legislators could mandate that unions must show evidence of equal percentage participation in STW to receive these funds. Further, they could mandate that no labor apprenticeships and training can be proprietary and that education opportunities are to be equal or at least available to all.

Another effective means available to the Government would be to mandate that union worker’s that receive unemployment compensation are required to serve public education for a specified amount of hours per week of unemployment. Workers could be effective in-house mentors, vocational aides, trip chaperones, etc., and would counterbalance entitlement in closed shop union environments.

Significant union presence only exists in New Castle County, the state’s most northern county. Kent and Sussex counties, have little or no union

construction labor union presence, except for an occasional product. Because of this lack of presence and influence, this study can be generalized to the entire state. To include all state data would unfairly skew results disproportionately against union labor. This phenomenon is the results of much lower population and infrastructure density in the middle and southern counties.

Hypothesis VI: Vocational and technical students are a highly qualified future labor force.

Indicators including school attendance of over 96% (best in the State) coupled with a .06% drop out rate (9-11% is average) suggests that vocational/technical students show up for instruction. Employers tend to rate co-op students as better than entry level workers. This is more evident in soft skills like attitude and work ethic. These students also obtain higher quality jobs than their non-participating counterparts and have better labor market outcomes.

Hypothesis VII: The criteria for STW participation are objective. The criteria for union participation and membership are subjective. Union’s

involvement in proprietary apprenticeships training inhibits training by others, thus limited new entries and preserving better paying jobs for union members. This supports the Brotherhood philosophy in that unions are people that band together for a common interest. Student eligibility criteria to participate in STW are equal to all students as guaranteed by law. In short, unions are averse to sharing resources at almost all levels. Public education is founded on the principle of equal opportunity and equal rights. Construction union labor continues to favor discrimination in their favor against non-union labor. The sycophantic mechanism and mindset of construction union labor is the penchant that precludes them from helping the most qualified students enjoy STW initiatives with union labor. They certainly have the right to operate in this manner, the researcher simply points out the marked difference in philosophy.

Retrospection.

Prior to beginning the research, the researcher resigned from the NCCVTEA, DSEA, and NEA to protect internal validity of the study. Additionally,

there were no consequences regarding the resignation that threatened validity. The survey instrument could have benefited from improvements for clarity and collection purposes. The researcher acknowledges that perhaps questions could have been grouped by STW initiative (mentoring, job-shadowing and cooperative employment) instead of grouping them by union and non-union groups. The length of the instrument (9 pages) was cause for concern before dissemination. Reworking the survey on numerous occasions yielded less than satisfactory results compared to the original. Judging by the abnormally high percentage of respondents, it did not impact participation as anticipated.

Positive choices associated with the survey instrument included the researcher’s choice to include a courtesy pen with the survey package. Hand delivering surveys to over three-fourths of the potential respondents also seemed to help. A script was followed each time a package delivery was made to curb researcher bias.

A surprising result of the survey was a very high common concern shared by union and non-union in reference to safety problems with high school students and STW. In both groups, over 41.5% felt safety issues were problematic with both groups participating in STW.

It was expected that the open-ended question at the end of the survey instrument would yield thoughts and/or ideas not specifically asked for in the survey. Surprisingly, there were no significant responses.

Recommendations & Implications.

Schools must both formalize and promote their instruction and position on safety in the workplace. Firstly, common instructional tenets, delivery mechanisms, rubrics, curriculum mapping, assessments and evaluations must be in place for each career area. In some career areas, this can be accomplished

by tapping into existing NCCER curriculum. Implied or disjointed efforts are not effective, especially when construction trades do not work in isolation and rely on multiple trades for their personal and collective safety.

Equal in importance, schools need to promote what they are doing to promote safety at the workplace to potential and existing STW employers. One significant fact in the New Castle County Vocational School District is that all construction trades juniors receive the OSHA 10-hour safety course in school. This is a first of its kind training at vocational high schools in the U.S., provided free of charge by certified instructors, courtesy of Associated Builders and Contractors of Delaware. All potential employers would regard this training as important and a valued consideration when hiring or training any workforce.

The Delaware AACVE should appoint a task force with equal representation from union labor, non-union labor, education and partisan politicians. The purpose of the panel is to come to consensus with a mechanism to promote increased and equal participation in STW initiatives by all Delaware

employers and employees. The panel’s recommendations should be publicized and presented to the Governor for review and implementation.

These recommendations should begin with a trial period where all stakeholders involved meet and collaborate with all forms of potential and existing STW employers on a community, county and state level. Models and examples of what present conditions exist, what can be attempted and what is simply not objectively pragmatic for all employers to participate in STW should be presented. Particular focus should be placed on existing data of who is presently participating and who is not.

Next, a Delaware Program to Advance STW should be rolled out. This must be a joint effort between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. It is recommended that the legislature impose strict guidelines for implementation, including three important items:

• Apprenticeship funds shall be discontinued to proprietary-based closed-shop union apprenticeship programs.

• Union labor worker’s who apply for unemployment compensation benefits shall also be required to serve at the leisure of one of Delaware’s vocational high schools for a specified period of time for each full week of unemployment. Their duties should be concentrated on in-house mentoring and vocational aide capacities.

• Delaware businesses and employees who meet identified criteria as a participator in STW initiatives will enjoy a state STW tax credit.

Recommended future studies:

• Has public education underserved, undervalued or failed a significant percentage of present union construction labor members in the U.S.?

• How do proprietary apprenticeship programs affect the construction industry and economy in Delaware?

• How to unionized construction trade member’s children stack up on high-stakes assessments?

• Are union-friendly Delaware politicians suppressing School-To-Work opportunities for students?

• How construction labor can join forced for the benefit of vocational-technical students.

53 r

References

American Youth Policy Forum and the Center for Worforce Development. Strategies for School-to-Work Sustainability, 2004. Retrieved 09/22/2005 from http://64.266.11.21/publications/aypf_looking.pdf

Bailey LJ. Working: Learning a Living . 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Educational Publishing; 1997.

Bilginsoy, C. Apprenticeship Training in the U.S. Construction Industry. University of Utah, 1998, p. 1.

Bingham MW. Possibilities: A Supplemental Anthology for Career Choices: Santa Barbara, CA: ABLE Publishing; 1991.

Cook AS. Feedom in the Workplace. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing; 2005.

Danielson C. Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2002.

Delaware Advisory Council on Career and Technical Education (2005). Retrieved on 10/16/2005 from http://www.k12.de.us/daccve/

Delaware State Education Association (n.d.). Retrieved on 11/1/2005 from http:www.dsea.org/membership

Dunkel, D. E. Guidelines for Financial Allocation and Administration of Related Apprenticeship Training Programs. (Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Temple University, 1979, p. 1-5).

Emerson, W.E. (1903), Essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Green M. Epitaph for American Labor: How Union Leaders Lost Touch with America . Washington, DC: The AEI Press; 1996. pp. 138,142,157).

Harmon, H. Building School-to-Work Systems in Rural America. Eric Digest, 1998, p. 1. Retrieved on 10/19/2005 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-3/rural.html

Hughes, K., Bailey, T., Mechur, M., "School-to-Work: Making a Difference in Education, Institute on Education and the Economy, Columbia University, 2001, pp. 17,26,27,30,31, 35-40.

Levesque K., Lauen D., Teitelbaum P., Alt M., Librera S., Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000 . Washington, DC: US Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 2000.

Marzano RJ. What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2003.

Mauer M. A Union Member’s Complete Guide . Annapolis, MD: Union Communication Services, Inc.; 2001, p. 2, 18, 110.

Mitchell EF. Cooperative Vocational Education, Principles, Methods and Problems . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1977.

National Center for Career and Technical Education Journal

New Castle County Vocational Technical School District. Survey Results- 1999 through 2004), 2005. Retrieved on 10/24/2005 from http://10.214.21.16/dtapr.htm

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Critical Issue: Improving School-to-Work Transition for All Students (n.d.). Retrieved on 10/19/2005 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/envrnmnt/stw/sw0.htm

Olson LA. The School to Work Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1997, p. 163-166).

Parsons, Andrea (nd). School to Career: School-Community Partnerships. Retrieved 10/19/2005 from http://kcsos.kern.org/schcom/School-To-Career?print-friendly=true

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000, NCES 2000-029, by Karen Levesque, Doug Lauen, Peter Teitelbaum, Martha Alt, and Sally Librera. Project Officer, Dawn Nelson. Washington, DC: 2000, p. v, 36, 89, 296-7.

Wentling TL. Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs . 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1980.

APPENDIX

Your name, company or any other personal information will not be shared at any time.

Participation is strictly voluntary and anonymous.

The following terms are used in the survey; therefore, general definitions of each are listed as an aid.

Mentoring - A student is paired with an adult "role model" who can help him/her with educational and career decisions. Some of the roles and responsibilities of a mentor include: informing the student about workplace norms and customs; providing caring, consistent support and guidance; and setting high expectations and regularly reviewing progress.

Job Shadowing - Generally a one-day visit to a workplace designed so students can observe someone at work in a specific career field. Students do not perform any work during a job shadowing experience.

Cooperative Employment - A program that combines career and technical coursework with part-time paid work experience during the school year.

1) Age: □ under 20 □ 20-29 □ 30-39 □ 40-49 □ 50-59 □ 60-65 □ over 65

2) The highest level of formal education completed: □ Some High School □ High School

□ Associates Degree □ Bachelor’s Degree □ Master’s Degree □ Post-Graduate Work □ Doctorate

3) How much do you earn per year? □ under $25,000 □ $25,000-$50,000 □ $50,000-$75,000 □ $75,000-$100,000

□ $100,000-$125,000 □ $125,000-$150,000 □ over $150,000

4) I am currently: □ an employee □ an employer □ a retiree □ unemployed

5) How many years experience do you have in the construction industry?

□ 0-5 □ 5-10 □ 11-15 □ 16-20 □ 21-30 □ 31-35 □ 36-40 □ 40 +

6) My company’s classification would be considered: □ construction □ manufacturer □ installer □ other □ n/a

7) My current working status is (check all that apply): □ Union □ Non-Union □ Supervisory □ Principal/Owner

8) My company is this type of employer: □ Union □ Non-Union □ Combination □ Don’t know □ n/a

9) Please check the following statement that most reflects your opinion and philosophy of construction trade labor.

□ A closed shop union construction labor environment is best for all concerned.

□ A merit shop philosophy which gives choice of union and non-union labor based on open competition is best for all concerned.

(continued)

□ A total non-union construction environment is best for all concerned.

□ It depends.

□ I don’t have an opinion.

□ I don’t know.

10) My employer or company participates in mentoring activities with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Never □ Seldom □ Somewhat □ Frequently □ Don’t Know

11) My employer or company participates in job shadowing activities with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Never □ Seldom □ Somewhat □ Frequently □ Don’t Know

12) My employer or company participates in cooperative employment activities with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Never □ Seldom □ Somewhat □ Frequently □ Don’t Know

13) Union construction labor should actively participate in mentoring with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

14) What do you see as problematic with union construction labor participating in mentoring? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate.

□ Mentoring is not important at the high school level.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

15) Union construction labor should actively participate in job shadowing with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

16) What do you see as problematic with union construction labor participating in job shadowing? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

(continued)

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate

□ Job shadowing is not important at the high school level.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

17) Union construction labor should actively participate in cooperative employment with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

18) What do you see as problematic with union construction labor participating in cooperative employment? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate.

□ Cooperative employment is not important at the high school level.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

(continued)

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

19) Non-union construction labor should actively participate in mentoring with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

20) What do you see as problematic with non-union construction labor participating in mentoring? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate.

□ Mentoring is not important.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

21) Non-union construction labor should actively participate in job shadowing with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

22) What do you see as problematic with non-union construction labor participating in job shadowing? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate.

□ Job-shadowing is not important.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

23) Non-union construction labor should actively participate in cooperative employment with high school students engaged in construction trades career paths.

□ Yes □ No

24) What do you see as problematic with non-union construction labor participating in cooperative employment? (check all that apply)

□ Labor agreements.

□ Choose not to participate.

□ School is school and work is work.

□ Have not been asked to participate.

□ Mentoring is not important.

□ Not enough time.

□ It’s not my job.

□ Safety concerns.

□ Lack of available training facilities.

□ Lack of appropriate work sites.

□ Membership requirements.

□ Can’t afford it monetarily.

□ Can’t afford to lose productivity.

□ It would displace a current worker/employee.

□ Other

25) There are other ways not mentioned above that I/my company support vocational-technical education.

□ Yes □ No

Please describe briefly below.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When complete, please place in one of the pre-paid envelopes and mail. Thank you for your participation.

TABLES

Frequency Tables
FT-1
Age	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
<20	3		2.1		2.1
20-29	12		8.5		10.6
30-39	24		16.9		27.5
40-49	39		27.5		54.9
50-59	52		36.6		91.5
60-69	9		6.3		97.9
>69	3		2.1		100
Total		142		100
FT-2
Education Level	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Some High School	3		2.1		2.1
High School	109		76.8		78.9
Associates Degree	12		8.5		87.3
Bachelor's Degree	9		6.3		93.7
Master's Degree	6		4.2		97.9
Post-Graduate Work	3		2.1		100
Total		142		100
FT-3
Yearly Earnings	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
under $25,000	6		4.2		4.3
$25,000 - $50,000	46		32.4		37.4
$50,000-$75,000	35		24.6		62.6
$75000 - $100,000	21		14.8		77.7
$100,000 - $125,000	12		8.5		86.3
$125000 - $150,000	3		2.1		88.5
above $150,000	16		11.3		100
Total		139		97.9
Missing		3		2.1
Total		142		100

FT-4
Worker Type	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Employee	87		61.3		62.6
Employer	46		32.4		95.7
Retiree	6		4.2		100
Total		139		97.9
Missing		3		2.1
Total		142		100
FT-5
Years Experience	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
0-5	12		8.5		8.6
10-Jun	19		13.4		22.3
15-Nov	24		16.9		39.6
16-20	17		12		51.8
21-30	24		16.9		69.1
31-35	30		21.1		90.6
36-40	4		2.8		93.5
40+	9		6.3		100
Total		139		97.9
Missing		3		2.1
Total		142		100
FT-6
Classification of Employer	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Construction	75		58.2		52.8
Manufacturer	9		6.3		59.2
Installer	43		30.3		89.4
Other	15		10.6		100
Total		142		100
FT-7A
Current Working Status is Union	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	2		1.4		3.3
Yes	59		41.5		100
Total		61		43
System		81		57
Total		142		100

FT-7B
Current Working Status is Non-Union	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	62		43.7		98.4
No	1		0.7		100
Total		63		44.4
System		79		55.6
Total		142		100
FT-7C
Current Working Status is Supervisory	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	1		0.7		2.4
Yes	40		28.2		100
Total		41		28.9
System		101		71.1
Total		142		100
FT-7D
Current Working Status is Principal/Owner	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	1		0.7		2.5
Yes	39		27.5		100
Total		40		28.2
System		102		71.8
Total		142		100
FT-8
I Work for This Type of Employer	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Union	61		43		43
Non-Union	81		57		100
Total		142		100

FT-9
Construction Trade Labor Philosophy	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Closed Union Shop	12		8.5		8.6
Merit Shop	19		13.4		22.3
Non-Union	24		16.9		39.6
Depends	17		12		51.8
No Opinon	24		16.9		69.1
Total	30		21.1		90.6
Missing	4		2.8		93.5
System	9		6.3		100
Total		139		97.9
Total		3		2.1
FT-10
Participates in Mentoring	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Never	67		47.2		47.2
Seldom	15		10.6		57.7
Somewhat	21		14.8		72.5
Frequenty	18		12.7		85.2
Don't Know	21		14.8		100
Total		142		100
FT-11
Participates in Job-Shadowing	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Never	82		57.7		57.7
Seldom	9		6.3		64.1
Somewhat	9		6.3		70.4
Frequenty	18		12.7		83.1
Don't Know	24		16.9		100
Total		142		100

FT-12
Participates in Cooperative Employment	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Never	70		49.3		49.3
Seldom	15		10.6		59.9
Somewhat	6		4.2		64.1
Frequenty	21		14.8		78.9
Don't Know	30		21.1		100
Total		142		100
FT-13
Unions Should Participate in Mentoring	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	40		28.2		29.4
Yes	96		67.6		98.5
Total	136		959.8		100
Missing		6		4.2
Total		142		100
Problems with Unions Participating in Mentoring
FT-14A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	63		44.4		100
Missing/System		79		55.6
Total		142		100
FT-14B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100

FT-14C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100
FT-14D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100
FT-14E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-14F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	10		7		100
Missing/System		132		93
Total		142		100
FT-14G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	6		4.2		100
Missing/System		136		95.8
Total		142		100

FT-14H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	64		45.1		100
Missing/System		78		54.9
Total		142		100
FT-14I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-14J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	79		55.6		100
Total		142		100
FT-14K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	22		15.5		100
Missing/System		120		84.5
Total		142		100
FT-14L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100

FT-14M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	35		24.6		100
Missing/System		107		75.4
Total		142		100
FT-14N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100
FT-15
Unions Should Participate in Job-Shadowing	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	35		24.6		24.6
Yes	107		75.4		100
Total		142		100
Problems with Unions Participating in Job Shadowing
FT-16A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	55		38.7		100
Missing/System		87		61.3
Total		142		100
FT-16B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100

FT-16C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100
FT-16D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100
FT-16E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-16F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	10		7		100
Missing/System		132		93
Total		142		100
FT-16G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	6		4.2		100
Missing/System		136		95.8
Total		142		100

FT-16H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	61		43		100
Missing/System		81		57
Total		142		100
FT-16I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	22		15.5		100
Missing/System		120		84.5
Total		142		100
FT-16J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	34		23.9		100
Missing/System		108		76.1
Total		142		100
FT-16K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	13		9.2		100
Missing/System		129		90.8
Total		142		100
FT-16L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100

FT-16M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100
FT-16N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	4		2.8		100
Missing/System		138		97.2
Total		142		100
FT-17
Unions Should Participate in Co-op Ed.	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	64		45.1		45.1
Yes	72		50.7		95.8
Missing	6		4.2		100
Total		142		100
Problems with Unions Participating in Co-op Ed.
FT-18A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	82		57.7		100
Missing/System		60		42.3
Total		142		100
FT-18B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100

FT-18C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100
FT-18D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100
FT-18E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-18F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100
FT-18G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100

FT-18H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	52		36.6		100
Missing/System		90		63.4
Total		142		100
FT-18I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100
FT-18J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	15		10.6		100
Missing/System		127		89.4
Total		142		100
FT-18K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	40		28.2		100
Missing/System		102		71.8
Total		142		100
FT-18L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	6		4.2		100
Missing/System		136		95.8
Total		142		100

FT-18M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	19		13.4		100
Missing/System		123		86.6
Total		142		100
FT-18N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100
FT-19
Non-Union Should Participate in Mentoring	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	31		21.8		23
Yes	104		73.2		77
Total	135		95.1		100
Missing		7		4.9
Total		142		100
Problems with Non-Unions Participating in Mentoring
FT-20A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	21		14.8		100
Missing/System		121		85.2
Total		142		100
FT-20B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100

FT-20C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-20D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100
FT-20E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-20F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	19		13.4		100
Missing/System		123		86.6
Total		142		100
FT-20G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100

FT-20H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	58		40.8		100
Missing/System		84		59.2
Total		142		100
FT-20I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	20		14.1		100
Missing/System		122		85.9
Total		142		100
FT-20J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	21		14.8		100
Missing/System		121		85.2
Total		142		100
FT-20K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100
FT-20L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes		13		9.2
Missing/System	129		90.8		100
Total		142		100

FT-20M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	23		16.2		100
Missing/System		119		83.8
Total		142		100
FT-20N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	20		14.1		100
Missing/System		122		85.9
Total		142		100
FT-21
Non-Union Should Support Job-Shadowing	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	30		21.1		22.6
Yes	103		72.5		100
Total		133		93.7
Missing		9		6.3
Total		142		100
Problems with Non-Union Participating in Job Shadowing
FT-22A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100
FT-22B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100

FT-22C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-22D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	18		12.7		100
Missing/System		124		87.3
Total		142		100
FT-22E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-22F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	32		22.5		100
Missing/System		110		77.5
Total		142		100
FT-22G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	7		4.9		100
Missing/System		135		95.1
Total		142		100

FT-22H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	55		38.7		100
Missing/System		87		61.3
Total		142		100
FT-22I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	20		14.1		100
Missing/System		122		85.9
Total		142		100
FT-22J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	21		14.8		100
Missing/System		121		85.2
Total		142		100
FT-22K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-22L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	6		4.2		100
Missing/System		136		95.8
Total		142		100

FT-22M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	19		13.4		100
Missing/System		123		86.6
Total		142		100
FT-22N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	10		7		100
Missing/System		132		93
Total		142		100
FT-23
Non-Union Should Support Co-op Ed.	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
No	33		23.2		26.6
Yes	91		64.1		73.4
Total	1224		87.3		100
Missing		18		12.7
Total		142		100
Problems with Non-Union Support of Co-op Ed.
FT-24A
Labor Agreements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100
FT-24B
Choose Not to Participate	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	17		12		100
Missing/System		125		88
Total		142		100

FT-24C
School is School, Work is Work	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		142		100
Total		142		100
FT-24D
Have Not Been Asked	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	12		8.5		100
Missing/System		130		91.5
Total		142		100
FT-24E
Mentoring is not Important	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-24F
Not Enough Time	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	13		9.2		100
Missing/System		129		90.8
Total		142		100
FT-24G
It's Not My Job	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	3		2.1		100
Missing/System		139		97.9
Total		142		100

FT-24H
Safety Concerns	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	64		45.1		100
Missing/System		78		54.9
Total		142		100
FT-24I
Lack of Training Facilities	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	17		12		100
Missing/System		125		88
Total		142		100
FT-24J
Lack of Work Sites	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	18		12.7		100
Missing/System		124		87.3
Total		142		100
FT-24K
Membership Requirements	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Missing/System	142		100		100
Total		142		100
FT-24L
Cannot Afford It Monetarily	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	16		11.3		100
Missing/System		126		88.7
Total		142		100

FT-24M
Cannot afford to Lose Productivity	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	23		16.2		100
Missing/System		119		83.8
Total		142		100
FT-24N
It Would Displace a Current Worker	Frequency		Percent		Cumulative Percent
Yes	10		7		100
Missing/System		132		93
Total		142		100

Table of Means
Legend:
UMYORN	=	Union Mentoring
USYORN	=	Union Job Shadowing
UCYORN	=	Union Cooperative Employment
NMYORN	=	Non-Union Mentoring
NSYORN	=	Non-Union Job Shadowing
NCYORN	=	Non-Union Coop. Employment
COTYPE	=	By Company Type