Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

June 8, 2009

Fight Is On For Workforce Training | Senate bill would cut funding by $11M

As the state Senate and House prepare to negotiate a compromise budget for fiscal 2010, much of the business community’s attention is focused on an $11 million disagreement over funding for workforce training grants.

The House budget funds the state Workforce Training Fund at $21 million, while the Senate version puts it at $10 million.

The fund, paid for through a surcharge on Massachusetts employers, provides grants to help companies train their workers. Richard Kennedy, president and CEO of the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce, said those grants are crucial, especially for fields like biotechnology where workers often need highly specialized training.

“As we look at the need for jobs in the community, it’s extremely important,” he said.

Fund Furor

Brian Gilmore, executive vice president of public affairs at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the fund is very popular among the group’s members. And, he said, AIM would argue that since the fund’s money comes from a specific employer surcharge it can’t simply be redirected.

“It can’t really be used, in our view, for general fund purposes,” he said.

Sarah Blodgett, chief of staff for State Sen. Karen Spilka of Framingham, said the workforce training funding is very important to Spilka and other senators. The Senate originally allocated only $5 million for the program and upped it to $10 million after adding extra funds to its calculations by including a sales tax hike.

Both Kennedy and Gilmore said they believe the conference committee that irons out differences between the House and Senate budgets will support the higher amount for the training fund.

“I think they’ll move the money around, and I think things that are closer to creating jobs, the better you are in the ability to fund and the willingness to fund,” Kennedy said.

But Blodgett said it’s hard to say what choices the conference committee will make.

“It’s not really realistic to go back up to House numbers,” she said.

Sign up for Enews

WBJ Web Partners

0 Comments

Order a PDF