Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon:
An Analysis of Data on Union and OpenShop Apprenticeship Programs
Prepared for the
Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council
by
Barbara Byrd, Ph.D.
Marc Weinstein, Ph.D.
Labor Education and Research Center
University of Oregon
March 2005
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 1
Table of Contents
Page Number
List of Charts and Tables
2
Introduction
3
Key Findings
5
Background
6
Data and Methodology
8
Findings and Analysis
9
Conclusion
23
Appendices
I: Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, 1992-2004
II: Trade Categories
III. Graduation Rates by Trade for 1992-99 Cohort, Union
Programs
IV. Graduation Rates by Trade for 1992-99 Cohort, Open
Shop Programs
III: Recent Studies of Apprenticeship Programs
24
27
29
30
31
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 2
Charts and Tables
Figure 1: Total Number of Active Construction Apprentices in Oregon, 2004
Figure 2: Registered Construction Apprentices in Oregon, 2004
Figure 3: Open Shop Construction Apprentices by Trade, 2004
Figure 4: Union Construction Apprentices by Trade, 2004
Figure 5: Women and Minority Male Apprentices, 2004
Figure 6: Apprentice Diversity in Union Programs, 2004
Figure 7: Apprentice Diversity in Open shop Programs, 2004
Figure 8: Number of Completions by 2004 of 1992-99 Entrants to Apprenticeship
Figure 9: Union and Open Shop Share of Completions for 1992-99 Entrants
Figure 10: Minority and Female Graduates among 1992-99 Entrants
Figure 11: Inside Electricians Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 12: Plumbers/Steamfitter Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 13: Carpenter Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 14: Laborers Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 15: Painters Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 16: Sheet Metal Apprenticeship – Program Outcomes
Figure 17: Roofers Apprenticeship - Program Outcomes
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 3
Introduction
Oregon is a state struggling to deal with the long- and short-term effects of economic
restructuring. Over the past several decades, the state’s workers lost their access to relatively
well paid, secure jobs in the timber industry. Since 1990, the manufacturing sector has also been
hard-hit, both because of the recent recession and because of the loss of jobs to outsourcing.
Though manufacturing has begun to recover somewhat, much of the recent employment growth
has been in low-wage service jobs, and in the extremely volatile high tech sector.1
The construction industry, however, remains an important source of family-wage jobs for
Oregon’s blue-collar workforce. Though employment is cyclical in the industry, there are
opportunities not only to earn a good wage, but equally important, to develop occupational skills
that are readily transferable. As the construction workforce ages, openings are being created in
construction occupations and the demand for skilled workers promises to increase.2
Apprenticeship training, the primary source of skilled workers for Oregon’s construction
industry, is key to the attractiveness of construction occupations for the state’s workforce. It
provides a path to more stable and better-paid jobs in the industry – construction “careers” rather
than simply dead-end manual labor.3 Moreover, its ability to equip construction workers with
the skills they need to perform high quality and efficient work is crucial to the industry’s success.
Little systematic research has been conducted on the performance of the state’s
construction apprenticeship programs. Such research is needed in part to inform policy
discussions that take place regularly at the state and local levels about the application of
apprenticeship utilization requirements to publicly funded construction projects, the ability of
construction apprenticeship programs to absorb previously excluded minority and women
workers, and the merits of union and open shop training.
Research would also be helpful since public funds are expended to oversee the operation
of apprenticeship training. The State of Oregon maintains an agency devoted to the
administration of registered apprenticeship (see p. 6 below). Oregon community colleges work
closely with apprenticeship programs, entering into arrangements, for example, to provide space
and instructional assistance, college credit for courses and on-the-job training, and other
1
Moore, Eric, and Johnny Vong, “Low-wage Industries Fuel Much of Oregon’s Job Growth,”
Oregon Labor Trends, October 2004, pp. 1-4.
2
Employment Projections by Industry 2002-1012: Oregon and Regional Summary, Oregon
Employment Department, July 16, 2004; “Projected Employment, Job Creation, and Skills
Shortages in Construction,” in The Construction Chart Book, Center to Protect Workers Rights,
Sept. 2002, chart 32.
3
Schneider, Kerstin, “Apprenticeship Programs in Oregon,” Oregon Labor Trends, Sept. 1997,
pp.1-4; Dwayne Stevenson & Denise P. O’Farrell, “Apprenticeship: The Process and Product,”
Oregon Labor Market Information System, August 27, 2002.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 4
assistance.4 And contractors on publicly funded projects are “subsidized” by the ability to pay
registered apprentices less than prevailing wage (OAR 839-016-0035(8) and (9); OAR 839-0160065).
This examination of the performance of construction training programs in Oregon is
limited to an analysis of data on enrollment and completion rates. It enables us to ask about the
success of particular programs in terms of their ability to add to the state’s skilled workforce. It
also allows consideration of minority and female participation and graduation rates. It does not
address issues of instructional quality, expenditure of state funds, or the experience of
construction workers following the completion of their training, though these, too, are important
issues. These latter topics must remain a subject for future, more in-depth research.
The analysis in this report reflects two structural features of the state (and national)
apprenticeship system that are key to making sense of enrollment and graduation data:
1) Nationally and in Oregon, the performance of apprenticeship programs varies greatly
by trade – some trades are more difficult to enter, require more academic skill, and take longer to
complete. These factors, along with varying wage rates, working conditions, and licensing
regulations, result in quite different outcomes across trades that are largely consistent around the
country. It can therefore be misleading to look at construction apprenticeship overall without a
trade-by-trade analysis.
2) A growing body of literature indicates that another source of variation is rooted in the
union or open-shop status of the programs (see list of studies in Appendix V). This report
compares data on the two types of systems in Oregon, in hopes of informing discussion at the
local and state level over apprenticeship utilization on publicly funded construction projects, the
use of project labor agreements, affirmative action in apprenticeship and related issues.
The report’s findings are based on data supplied by the Apprenticeship and Training
Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The work was funded by the Oregon
State Building and Construction Trades Council.
4
See the “Annual List of Community College Apprenticeship Related Training Providers”
published by the Oregon State Board of Education for participating community colleges.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 5
Key Findings
The findings outlined in this report suggest that, in general, union apprenticeship
programs do a better job than open shop programs of recruiting and graduating apprentices. On
a trade-by-trade basis, most union programs also do better in recruiting and graduating women
and minority apprentices.
o In 2004, union apprenticeship programs were training 57% of all construction apprentices.
At the end of December 2004, there were 2,571 apprentices in union programs as compared
to 1,915 in open shop programs.
o The average program size of union programs is almost three times higher than that of open
shop programs – 92 apprentices per program as compared to 37.
o Union apprenticeship programs train for a much greater variety of occupations. Open shop
programs are concentrated in the licensed trades of electrician and plumber/steamfitter.
o Union programs currently train more than twice as many women and minorities than do open
shop programs. Women’s share of union apprenticeship enrollments is approximately 7%,
and minority enrollments in union programs 14.2%. Women’s share of open shop
apprenticeship enrollment is 3.6%, and minority enrollment is 10%.
Completion rates cited in this report are actual rates and were calculated based on the proportion
of those who began their training between 1992-99 inclusive and who successfully completed
their training by 2004.
o Union programs complete more apprentices than open shop programs, overall. Fifty-five
percent of all construction apprenticeship graduates come from union programs.
o When union and open shop programs are compared trade-by-trade, most union programs
have higher graduation rates than their open shop counterparts.
o Union programs graduate almost twice as many minorities, and more than twice as many
females, than do open shop programs. On a trade-by-trade basis, women graduate at a
consistently higher rate in union programs, and minorities graduate at a higher rate in most
union programs.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 6
Background
The Apprenticeship System in Oregon
Oregon’s system of registered apprenticeship consists of supervised on-the-job training
combined with related classroom instruction. Apprentices typically start at approximately half of
the established Journey-level wage in their trade, progressing to the full Journey-level wage upon
completion of their programs. Their training can last from two to five years. Upon completion of
the training, apprentices receive a certificate of completion recognized nationwide.
The individual programs are governed by apprenticeship committees that are required by
Oregon statute to include representatives from both employers and employees. Apprenticeship
committees adopt training standards for their respective programs and develop their own
guidelines on admissions, number of openings, wage rates and progressions, and training
content. Employers who desire to hire apprentices are required to become registered training
agents and can affiliate with an existing apprenticeship committee or organize a committee for a
new program, subject to the approval of the OSATC.
Oregon is one of 28 states that operates its own registered apprenticeship system.5 The
system is overseen by the Oregon State Apprenticeship and Training Council (OSATC), which is
chaired by the Labor Commissioner and made up of 10 members appointed by the Governor
(four from each of the service/industrial and construction occupations, plus two from the public).
The Apprenticeship and Training Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)
is charged with day-to-day monitoring of apprentice training in the state, including issues of
quality, breadth of training, and recruitment and retention. Staff known as “consultants” are
assigned particular programs to oversee. They attend training committee meetings and compile
reports based on registration, termination and completion data. They also conduct annual
compliance reviews.6 The OSATC meets quarterly to approve new programs and discuss
problems with existing programs, review standards and compliance reports, and otherwise
oversee the work of the Apprenticeship and Training Division.
The first apprenticeship programs in Oregon were operated by unions. Indeed, formal
apprenticeship was a creation of labor unions in the state. The first programs were established in
the 1920’s in Portland, a cooperative endeavor between city contractors and the unions of the
Building Trades Council.7 In 1931, Oregon became the second state in the nation to recognize
5
The other states’ programs are overseen by the federal Office of Apprenticeship Training,
Employer and Labor Services.
6
Programs with significant compliance problems are monitored more closely and may be put on
a corrective plan, facing sanctions up to and including dissolution of the program.
7
Craig Wollner, The City Builders: One Hundred Years of Union Carpentry in Portland,
Oregon, 1883-1893 (Portland, OR: The Oregon Council on Economic Education and UBC Local
#247, 1984), p. 86.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 7
and formalize a statewide apprenticeship training system.8 Building and construction trades
unions and their signatory contractors continued to be active in apprenticeship training, spurred
by their mutual desire to insure the related goals of a high standard of workmanship, steady
employment for workers, and a competitive edge for the employers in the respective crafts.
It was not until 1973 that the first open shop (non-union, “merit” or “parallel”) programs
were approved. In the intervening years, the number of such programs has grown rapidly.
Today, more than half of all construction apprenticeship programs in Oregon are open shop,
though they are concentrated in the licensed electrical and pipe trades.
8
Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Apprenticeship: Oregon’s Best Kept Secret (July,
1988), p. 13.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 8
Data and Methodology
The data in this report were provided by the Apprenticeship and Training Division in the
form of computer files spanning the period 1992-2004. Data included demographic information
on apprentices who completed or were terminated from registered construction apprenticeship
programs during that time period, as well as similar information on currently enrolled
apprentices. Records were checked for accuracy, and those with incomplete or incorrectlyentered data were eliminated from the analysis.
This study considers only building and construction trades apprenticeship programs as
defined by BOLI.9 A list of these programs included in the data analysis can be found in
Appendix I. The list includes programs in existence during the relevant time frame, and, for
current enrollment data, those in existence during 2004.
Oregon recognizes “mixed” as well as strictly union and open shop programs. In most
cases, mixed programs include primarily either union or open shop apprentices. In this analysis,
mixed programs that are predominantly union are included with union programs, and mixed
programs that are predominantly open shop are included with open shop programs.
Identification was made with the assistance of BOLI staff.
Trades were grouped according to industry practice. In this state, for example, a number
of large and small trades are included under the “carpenter” heading because their training
programs are typically merged into one administrative entity, and they share instructional staff
and resources. Appendix II lists individual trade names that were combined to form larger trade
categories.
Data were analyzed using SPSS software.
9
State of Oregon, Apprenticeship and Training Division, Oregon Apprenticeship Guide, 2005.
Available on-line at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/ATD/A_AG_Intro.shtml.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 9
Findings and Analysis
I. Current Enrollment
As Figures 1 & 2 illustrate, the majority of construction apprentices currently registered
in Oregon are enrolled in union programs. Although there are 52 open shop apprenticeship
programs and only 28 union programs in Oregon, the union programs are, on average, three
times larger than their non-union counterparts. Union programs have an average enrollment of 92
apprentices compared to only 37 enrollees in non-union apprenticeship programs.
Figure 1: Total Number of Active
Construction Apprentices, 2004
3000
2571
2500
1926
2000
Union
1500
Open Shop
1000
500
0
Union
Open Shop
Figure 2: Registered Construction Apprentices in Oregon,
2004
Open Shop
43%
Union
57%
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 10
II. Diversity of training opportunities
As Figures 3 and 4 make clear, union apprenticeship in Oregon covers a much wider
range of occupations than does open shop apprenticeship. The majority of open shop programs
are found in the licensed electrical and plumbing trades. Workers entering these trades are
required under Oregon law to complete an apprenticeship program, so employers have a major
incentive to participate as training agents. State licensing is not a factor in other trades, so that
employers in these other trades tend to be less willing to invest in the training of apprentices.
Union employers, however, are compelled by negotiated agreements to become training agents
and contribute to training trusts, which accounts for the greater diversity of crafts represented
among union programs.
Figures 3 and 4 on the next two pages compare, for the union and open shop sectors, the
distribution of apprentices by trade for which they are being trained, for all programs with 20 or
more enrolled apprentices statewide.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 11
Figure 3: Open Shop Construction
Apprentices by Trade, 2004
(trades with more than 20 apprentices statewide)
Other trades
Carpenter
HVAC
Plumber
Inside Electrician
Sheet Metal
Limited Energy
Technician, 2-4 yr.
Laborer
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 12
Figure 4: Union Construction Apprentices
by Trade, 2004
(trades with more than 20 apprentices statewide)
Other trades
Elevator
Constructor
Carpenter
Cement Mason
Bricklayer
Roofer
Glazier
Painter
Operating
Engineer
Ironworker,
Structural
Steamfitter
Inside Electrician
Laborer
Plumber
Sheet Metal
Ltd. Energy
Technician, 4 yr.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 13
III. Access for Women and Minorities
The numbers of female and minority male apprentices in the union sector are more than
twice as high as those in the open shop sector, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Women and Minority Male Apprentices,
2004
600
500
178
400
Women
Minority Men
300
200
69
365
100
193
0
Union
Open Shop
Women and minority males also make up a higher proportional enrollment in union programs
than they do in open shop programs, as reflected in Figures 6 and 7 below.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 14
Figure 6: Apprentice Diversity in Union
Programs, 2004
Women
7%
Minority Men
14%
White Men
79%
Figure 7: Apprentice Diversity in Open
Shop Programs, 2004
Women
4%
Minority Men
10%
White Men
86%
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 15
IV. Completions
One important measure of the effectiveness of apprenticeship training is the extent to
which those entering a program actually complete it. How do union and open shop programs
compare in terms of numbers and percent of apprentices who graduate, or achieve Journey-level
status in their trade? In this report, completion (or graduation) rates are for apprentices who
started their training between 1992 and 1999, inclusive, and completed by 2004.10 . It should be
noted that because the late 1990’s and first several years of the 2000’s were recessionary years
for the construction industry, it may have taken apprentices in all programs somewhat longer to
complete their required work hours.
First, as reflected in Figure 8, more union than open shop apprentices among the 1992-99
cohort had completed their training by 2004. Union apprentices accounted for 55% of all
graduates (Figure 9).
Figure 8: Number of Completions by 2004 of 199299 Entrants to Apprenticeship
4500
4000
3500
4021
3000
3265
2500
Union
Open Shop
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Union
10
Open Shop
For comparisons to be accurate, it is assumed that programs are of identical length, union and
open shop. This is not the case for two trades (plumbing and sheet metal), where union
programs take approximately one year longer to complete
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 16
Figure 9: Union and Open Shop Share of
Completions for 1992-99 Entrants
Open Shop
45%
Union
55%
Union programs graduate a higher number of women and minorities (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Minority and Female Graduates
among 1992-99 Entrants
450
400
350
300
387
250
Union
Open Shop
200
150
216
202
100
50
80
0
Minorities
Women
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 17
III. Trade Comparisons
Because of the wide variation in completion rates among the various construction trades,
an overall comparison of the union and open shop apprenticeship programs is difficult. It is
more meaningful, we believe, to compare graduation rates on a trade by trade basis (though as
shall be shown, there are still difficulties with direct comparisons between programs with
different standards.)
In all but one case where union apprenticeship programs have open shop counterparts, the
graduation rates are higher on the union side, with differentials ranging from 7 - 30 percentage
points. (Appendices III and IV list graduation rates for all trades). Females graduate from union
programs at a higher rate in all cases we examined. Minority completion rates in union programs
are higher in five of the seven cases. The figures below show graduation figures for electrical,
plumbing, carpentry, laborer, painter, sheet metal and roofing trades, which are the seven trades
where there are parallel union and open shop programs.
Inside Electrical
The electrical industry in Oregon is heavily regulated, and journey-level electricians must
not only complete an apprenticeship program but also obtain a state license. Thus, graduation
rates for inside electrical programs are the highest among all the trades. The union graduate rate
is over 15 percentage points higher than the open shop rate. The gaps are similarly large for
females and minorities.
Figure 11: Inside Electricians
Apprenticeship - Program Outcomes
80.0%
70.0%
77.4%
61.9%
62.5%
60.9%
60.0%
45.5%
50.0%
35.3%
40.0%
Open Shop
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Union
Completion Rate
Female
Completion Rate
Minority
Completion Rate
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 18
Plumber
The plumbing industry is also regulated, requiring completion of an apprenticeship and
passing of a licensing exam. Graduation rates are similarly higher for this trade. Figure 12
shows comparable graduation rates for union and open shop apprentices. The union programs are
five years long whereas comparable open shop programs are only four years in length. It is
possible that the methodology used to calculate graduation rates may thus understate the number
of graduates from the longer union programs. The female graduation rate is slightly higher in the
union programs and the minority graduation rate slightly higher in the open shop programs.
Figure 12: Plumbers Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
70.0%
60.0%
62.6%
55.5%
50.0%
50.0%
45.5%
51.6%
54.5%
40.0%
Union
30.0%
Open Shop
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Completion Rate
Minority
Completion Rate
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 19
Carpenter, laborer, painter
Consistent with national trends, the trades of carpenter, laborer, and painter in Oregon have
lower graduation rates than the licensed trades. In these three trades, opportunities to work
without a license or even journey-level status are widespread and there is therefore less incentive
to complete these programs. Nonetheless, union apprentices are more likely to complete their
training in these trades than are their non-union counterparts, and these trends hold true for both
men and women. Graduation rates for minority apprentices are higher for union carpenter and
laborer programs, and slightly higher for non-union painter apprentices. Female graduation rates
are higher in all the union programs, though the differences for the carpentry trade are slight.
Figure 13: Carpenters Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
35.0%
31.1%
30.0%
25.0%
22.7%
19.4%
20.0%
14.9%
16.2%
13.3%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Minority
Completion Rate Completion Rate
Union
Open Shop
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 20
Figure 14: Laborers Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
30.0%
25.3%
25.0%
22.9%
21.1%
18.4%
20.0%
14.9%
13.2%
15.0%
Union
Open Shop
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Minority
Completion Rate Completion Rate
Figure 15: Painters Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
30.0%
25.5%
25.0%
20.0%
22.0%
21.7%
23.1%
16.4%
14.3%
15.0%
Union
Open Shop
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Minority
Completion Rate Completion Rate
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 21
Sheet Metal
Union sheet metal apprenticeship programs are longer by at least a year than their open
shop counterparts (10,000 hours on-the-job training as compared to 7,200 in the open shop
programs), in part because the union programs require apprentices to complete a low-voltage
electrical license. Nevertheless, this trade shows the most dramatic differences in graduation
rates between the union and open shop sectors, as shown in Figure 16 below.
Figure 16: Sheet Metal Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
70.0%
61.2%
58.8%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.7%
33.3%
Union
24.3%
30.0%
20.0%
14.3%
10.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Completion Rate
Minority
Completion Rate
Open Shop
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 22
Roofer
Roofing has one of the lower graduation rates of the trades in Oregon, consistent with
national figures. In Oregon, the union program admitted over 6 times as many apprentices to its
program than did the open shop program during the time 1992-99 period analyzed. The overall
graduation rate is slightly higher in the open shop sector, but the female and minority rates are
higher in the union program.
Figure 17: Roofers Apprenticeship Program Outcomes
28.4%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
13.8%
15.0%
14.6%
12.5%
10.0%
Union
Open Shop
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Completion Rate
Female
Minority
Completion Rate Completion Rate
Graduation rates for the remaining trades are contained in tables in Appendices III and IV.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 23
Conclusion
A study of union and open shop apprenticeship programs that looks only at quantitative
data is by its nature limited. Questions about quality of the on-the-job experience, as well as inclass related training, are important to address in a comprehensive assessment. Moreover, the
issue of public vs. private funding of apprenticeship training remains unexamined. However, the
data we have analyzed – enrollment, completion rates, and diversity– do tell at least a part of this
important story. The union and open shop training systems in Oregon are comparable in size
overall, as we have seen, but the diversity of occupations is much greater on the union side.
Though not universal, union completion rates tend to be higher on a trade-by-trade basis, and in
some trades are substantially higher.
Female and minority enrollment and completion rates were also examined in this report.
Women and minorities are better represented in the union sector overall. Females graduate from
union programs at higher rates in all cases, using our trade-by-trade comparison; minorities
graduate from union programs at higher rates in a majority of the trades. Nevertheless, the
figures show that women and minorities continue to be underrepresented overall in construction
apprenticeship in Oregon. Efforts designed to increase their participation have been made and
should be encouraged. To aid in improving these efforts, the experiences of women and
minorities in these programs should continue to be a subject for research, highlighting “best
practices” as well as continued barriers to their participation.
For the most part, our findings are consistent with findings from previous research
conducted nationally and in other states (see Appendix V). Oregon has a much more established
open shop apprenticeship system than in other states where research has been conducted.
Nevertheless, our findings indicate that not only do union programs graduate more apprentices
overall and women and minorities in particular than open shop programs, but they also have
higher completion rates for most categories of workers. As debates proceed at the state and local
levels, Oregon policy makers should be aware of the performance differences.
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 24
Appendix I: Construction Apprenticeship Programs in
Oregon, 1992-2004
Open Shop (or mixed, predominantly open shop)
1003
1033
1038
1046
1049
1051
1056
1060
1074
1076
1077
1080
1086
1099
1100
1126
1175
2003
2006
2015
2016
2020
2022
2023
2026
2028
2035
3002
3003
3008
3015
3019
3022
3025
3032
3036
3038
3040
3043
4003
Clatsop County TAC
Tillamook/Clatsop County TAC
Area I Plumbers JATC
Area I Inside Electrical JATC
AV Industry JATC
OR Limited Energy Electrical JATC
Area I Painters JATC
Area I NW Sheet Metal JAC
Portland Metro-Salem and Vicinity Carpenters JATC
Columbia Willamette Green Industry TATC
Oregon & SW-WA Sprinkler Fitters JATC
Area I HVAC JATC
Construction Equipment Operators JATC
Limited Energy Electrician JATC
Protective Signaling JATC
Renewable Energy JATC
OR/Columbia Heavy Equipment Operator JATC
Lincoln County TATC
Mid-Willamette TAC
Area II Plumbers JATC
Area II Inside Electrical JATC
Area II Limited Energy Electrical
Mid-Valley Steamfitters/Pipefitters JATC
Oregon Laborers JATC
Mid-Valley HVAC JAC
Morse Brothers JATC
Morse Brothers Operators JAC
Central Sign Hanger JATC
Eugene Construction Trades JATC
Eugene TATC
Area III Plumbers JATC
Area III Inside Electrical JATC
So. Willamette Valley Ltd. Energy Electrical JATC (mixed; predom. non-union)
Area III Sheet Metal/HVAC Environmental Service JATC
Area III construction Millwright JATC
Greater Oregon Roofers JATC
Lane County Carpenters JATC
Lane County Painters and Decorators JATC
McKenzie Willamette Restricted Energy Electrical JATC
Coos Bay TAC
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 25
4012
4015
4016
4020
4021
5004
5006
5009
5012
5022
5025
6008
6011
6013
6017
6023
7001
7004
7005
7010
7012
7013
7017
7018
7020
7024
7026
Roseburg TAC
Area IV (Coos Bay) Independent TAC
Area IV Inside Electrical JATC
Douglas County Sheetmetal JATC
Roseburg TATC
Rogue Valley Trades ATC
South Central OR Sheet Metal JATC
Area V Inside Electrical JATC
Area V (Rogue Valley) Plumbers JATC
Rogue Valley HVAC/R JATC
Klamath Basin Plumbers JATC
Ontario TATC
Blue Mountain TATC
Area VI Inside Electrical JATC
Mid-Columbia Area TATC
Greater Eastern Oregon Carpenters JATC
Area VII Inside Electrical JATC
Central Oregon TATC
Area VII Plumbers JATC
Burns-Hines TATC
Warm Springs TATC
Central Oregon Sheet Metal JATC
Klamath Basin TATC
Klamath Tribal Carpenters JATC
Central Oregon Cabinetmakers JATC
Klamath Basin Inside Electrician JATC
Central Oregon Limited Energy Electrical
Union (or mixed, predominantly union)
1004 NECA-IBEW Electrical JATC
1005 Oregon Construction Millwright/Machine Erector JATC
1008 Oregon SW-WA Mason Trades JATC
1010 Portland-Salem Metro & Eastern OR Tilesetters JATC
1013 Pacific NW Ironworker and Employer ATC #29
1014 Portland Carpenters JATC
1015 Oregon & SW-WA Cement Masons JATC
1016 Portland Drywall Finishers JATC
1017 Portland/Salem Glassworkers JATC
1019 Northern Oregon SW-WA Plasterers JATC
1020 NW Oregon SW-WA Resilient Floor/Decorative Cover JATC
1021 Portland Millmen & Cabinetmakers JATC
1024 Western Oregon SW-WA Painters JATC
1028 Portland Sheet Metal Worker JATC
1030 Portland Stationary Engineers JATC (mixed program/predom. union)
1041 Oregon SW-WA IUOE Local #701 & AGC JATC (mixed, predom. Union)
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 26
1043
1047
1050
1052
1053
1055
1057
1058
1059
1069
1070
1071
1083
1084
1109
1118
1153
2004
2014
2024
2025
2029
3001
3006
3021
4009
4010
4013
4017
5001
5018
5019
5024
6004
6010
6021
6022
OR SW-WA NW-CA Metal Trades Pipefitter JATC
Oregon-SW Washington Elevator Industry JATC
Greater Portland Roofers JATC
Oregon SW-WA Heat/Frost Insulators/Asbestos Workers JATC
Limited Energy Technicians JATC
Exterior/Interior Specialties JATC
Oregon SW-WA Carpenters JATC
Oregon SW-WA Laborers JATC
Portland Area Limited Residential Electrical JATC
Oregon SW-WA Mason, Plasterer and Hod Carriers JATC
Oregon SW-WA NW-CA Plumbers JATC
Oregon SW-WA NW-CA Steamfitters JATC
Oregon SW-WA Heavy Truck Driver JATC
Portland Area Piledrivers JATC
Oregon Scaffold Erector JATC
NW Line Constructors JATC
Oregon Construction Teamsters JATC
Linn/Benton Carpenters JATC
Salem Sheet Metal Workers JATC
Marion/Polk Carpenters JATC
Oregon Field Construction Boilermakers JATC
Coast/Willamette Interior/Exterior JATC
Central Electrical JATC
Southwestern Oregon Sheetmetal Workers JATC
Southwestern Oregon Roofers JATC
Pacific Inside Electrical JAC
Roseburg Carpenters TAC
Southwestern Oregon Carpenters JATC (mixed; predom. union)
Coos-Curry Sheet Metal JATC
Crater Lake Electrical JATC
Southern Oregon Carpenters JATC (mixed; predom. union)
Crater Lake Limited Residential Electrical JATC
Southern Oregon Sheet Metal Worker JATC
LU 112-NECA Electrical JATC
Eastern Oregon Carpenters JATC
NE Oregon Plumbers and Steamfitters TATC
NE Oregon Sheet Metal Workers JATC
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 27
Appendix II: Trade Categories
Trade Designation
Other Trades Included
Bricklayer
Tilesetter
Finisher
Marble Setter
Carpenter
Millwright
Interior/Exterior Specialist
Scaffold Erector
Pile Driver
Dry Wall Applicator
Cabinetmaker
Cement Mason
Electrician, Inside
Limited Residential Electrician
Limited Energy Technician, 2 or 4 years
Limited Energy Technician
Restricted Energy Technician
Limited Energy Tech A & B
Elevator Mechanic
Floor Coverer
Glazier
HVAC Technician
Insulator, Heat & Frost
Ironworker, Structural
Laborer
Operating Engineer
Heavy Truck Driver
Technical Engineer
Light Grade/Paving Operator
Painter
Taper
Traffic Painter
Painter/Decorator
Drywall Finisher
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 28
Pipefitter
Plasterer
Plumber
Roofer
Sheet Metal Worker
Sheet Metal Worker Service Systems Tech
Sign Maker/Hanger
Sign Maker/Erector
Sign Assembler/Fabricator
Sign Electrician
Sprinkler Fitter
Steamfitter
Appendix III: Graduation Rates by Trade for 1992-99 Cohort, Union Programs
Total New
Minority
Female
Completion
Total
Minority
Total
Female
Apprentices, Completed
Completion
Completion
Rate
Minority Completed
Female Completed
1992-99
Rate
Rate
Bricklayer/Mason
391
158
40.4%
56
19
33.9%
22
7
31.8%
Carpenter
2537
789
31.1%
391
76
19.4%
154
23
14.9%
Cement Mason
229
63
27.5%
46
6
13.0%
33
2
6.1%
Electrician, Inside
1538
1191
77.4%
120
75
62.5%
115
70
60.9%
Floor Coverer
102
48
47.1%
10
3
30.0%
2
0
0.0%
Glazier
101
61
60.4%
8
5
62.5%
3
1
33.3%
Insulator, Heat & Frost
50
46
92.0%
5
4
80.0%
4
4
100.0%
Ironworker, Structural
401
187
46.6%
56
18
32.1%
14
4
28.6%
Laborer
463
97
21.0%
166
38
22.9%
83
21
25.3%
Ltd. Energy Tech, 4 yr.
213
134
62.9%
21
17
81.0%
26
17
65.4%
Operating Engineer
271
84
31.0%
58
12
20.7%
68
13
19.1%
Painter
353
90
25.5%
60
13
21.7%
41
9
22.0%
Pipefitter
32
10
31.3%
3
2
66.7%
3
0
0.0%
Plasterer
104
25
24.0%
13
0
0.0%
5
0
0.0%
Plumber
393
246
62.6%
31
16
51.6%
10
5
50.0%
Roofer
1549
155
10.0%
341
48
14.1%
16
2
12.5%
Sheet Metal Worker
503
308
61.2%
34
20
58.8%
15
5
33.3%
Steamfitter
400
302
75.5%
36
15
41.7%
25
17
68.0%
Construction Apprenticeship in Oregon, p. 1
Appendix IV: Graduation Rates by Trade for 1992-99 Cohort, Open Shop Programs
Total New
Minority
Female
Total
Minority
Total
Female
Apprentices, Completed Completion
Completion
Completion
Minority Completed
Female Completed
1992-99
Rate
Rate
Rate
Carpenter
621
141
22.7%
68
11
16.2%
60
8
13.3%
Electrician, Inside
2198
1361
61.9%
154
70
45.5%
85
30
35.3%
Glazier
5
2
40.0%
2
2
100.0%
0
0
N/A
HVAC Technician
52
16
30.0%
2
1
50.0%
1
0
0.0%
Laborer
396
59
14.9%
147
27
18.4%
76
10
13.2%
Ltd. Energy Tech, 2-4 yr.
1537
720
46.8%
102
47
46.1%
55
23
41.8%
Operating Engineer
18
7
38.9%
9
3
33.3%
4
1
25.0%
Painter
134
22
16.4%
13
3
23.1%
7
1
14.3%
Pipefitter
27
14
51.9%
1
0
0.0%
0
0
N/A
Plasterer
1
0
0.0%
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
Plumber
1207
670
55.5%
66
36
54.5%
11
5
45.5%
Roofer
247
34
13.8%
97
7
7.2%
0
0
N/A
Sheet Metal Worker
696
214
30.7%
37
9
24.3%
7
1
14.3%
Sign Maker
81
21
25.9%
4
1
25.0%
3
1
33.3%
Sprinkler Fitter
61
0
0.0%
4
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
Appendix V: Recent Studies of Apprenticeship
Bennici, Frank, with Jeff Strohl & Deborah Posner, The Status of Registered Apprenticeship: An
Analysis Using Data from the Registered Apprenticeship Information System, Prepared for the
U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services, April
2004.
Berik, Gunseli, and Cihan Bilginsoy, “Unions and Women’s Training for the Skilled Trades in
the U.S.,” Review of Black Political Economy, 29, 4, Spring 2002, pp. 97-122.
_____________, “Do Unions Help or Hinder Women? Apprenticeship Training in the United
States,” Industrial Relations, 39, 4, October 2000, pp. 600-624.
Bilginsoy, Cihan, “Apprenticeship Training in the U.S. Construction Industry,” Report funded by
CPWR Pilot Study Grant (#97-3-PS), September 1998.
_____________, “The Hazards of Training: Attrition and Retention in Construction Industry
Training Programs,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, v. 57, no. 1, October 2003.
Bradley, David H. and Stephen A. Herzenberg, Construction Apprenticeship and Training in
Pennsylvania, Capitol Area Labor Management Committee, 2002.
Etherton, Sarah, Stephen L. Cook and Robert V. Massey Jr., Building Trades Apprenticeship
Training in West Virginia: A Comparison of Union and Non-Union Building Trades Programs in
the 1990’s, West Virginia University Institute for Labor Studies and Research, May 2002.
Johansson, Erin and Fred Feinstein, Apprenticeship Training Programs in Maryland: A Case
Study of the Construction Industry, 1990-2003, 2004.
Londrigan, William J. and Joseph B. Wise, Apprenticeship Training in Kentucky: A Comparison
of Union and Non-Union Programs in the Building Trades, 1997.
Loomans, Randy and Mitch Seaman, Apprenticeship Utilization in Washington State Programs
in the Building and Construction Industry, Washington State Building and Construction Trades
Council, 2002.
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services, The
National Registered Apprenticeship System: Programs and Apprentices, Fiscal Year 2003.
Vincent, Jeffrey, Analysis of Construction Industry Apprenticeship Programs in Indiana, 2004.