Employment Training Panel approves dozens of contracts totaling about $24.2 million, sets higher wage floor on one construction grant

The California Employment Training Panel on Dec. 24 approved a package of employer training contracts that staff said would total roughly $24.2 million if all moves were funded as presented. The panel heard more than 60 proposals from manufacturers, healthcare providers, construction groups and agricultural employers and approved the majority after staff presentations, applicant remarks and questions from panel members.

Panel staff told members the meeting consolidated two previously scheduled sessions and that, if all listed proposals were approved, the panel would authorize 67 projects for the fiscal period. Staff gave a budget and demand update saying the panel’s pipeline included about 201 applications with an estimated demand of roughly $105.1 million.

Several high‑value and notable approvals included: Clorox Manufacturing ($540,960, contract start date requested and inserted as Oct. 25, 2024), GKN Aerospace (critical proposal, $785,680), Anduril Industries ($831,040), PG&E refresher training for line workers ($500,976, start date 10/25/2024) and numerous agriculture and food processors (examples: Sutter Home Winery $554,400; Wonderful Orchards $299,880). Many other first‑time and repeat contractors were approved across regions, including multi‑employer contracts for small and mid‑sized manufacturers.

One contested item drew sustained questioning from panel members: the Associated Builders and Contractors (Central California) request for $579,399 to train 387 workers in Kern and Fresno counties. Panel members pressed the applicant on the proposal’s post‑retention wage, noting that more than half the proposed trainees were listed with wages in the $17–$20/hour range. After discussion, the panel moved to approve the ABC request with a $20 per hour post‑retention wage floor.

Labor representatives who spoke during public comment urged higher post‑retention wages for some projects that will serve construction employees and apprentices; the panel’s amendments in at least one instance reflected that concern.

Panel members regularly asked applicants for clearer evidence of wage progression in subsequent reports or when applicants return with new proposals. Staff was also asked to follow up on administrative capacity and past performance when organizations sought substantially larger awards than they previously received.

The panel approved most motions by roll call. Several items were pulled from consent for fuller discussion; one application (a private vocational provider) was tabled for staff follow‑up after panel members requested additional written answers about tuition, student costs and performance metrics.

What happens next: Staff will finalize contracts with start dates where approved and follow up on items the panel tabled for further information. The panel also delegated one appeal to a subcommittee for hearing (see separate article on the Vino Farms appeal).