[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

Truth ^ My husband is a plumber and has always found it difficult to find licensed ones to hire, so he is always short staffed. The state also dictates the number of apprentices you’re allowed, which is based on the number of licensed plumbers you employee. It’s a never ending vicious cycle...
He attended a seminar awhile back and there was some crazy statistic given — within the next 10 years or so, the number of licensed skilled tradespeople will be reduced by 60%, as the older ones retire.
No one encourages their children to pursue a trade these days. It’s 4 year college for everyone.

I thought it was the trade unions that limited the number of apprentices. I know several people that tried to get in but could not due to the limits. Until they make changes to how they attract and enroll people in their programs you won't see changes. Jay

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I thought it was the trade unions that limited the number of apprentices. I know several people that tried to get in but could not due to the limits. Until they make changes to how they attract and enroll people in their programs you won't see changes. Jay

That’s what I’m saying — it’s union influence that we have these State laws/regulations (which also apply to private non union employers). My husband privately owns a plumbing company (non union) in Danbury. By state law he is only allowed to hire X number of apprentices, based on the number of licensed plumbers he employs. It’s BS

If my husband wanted to hire three apprentices tomorrow and offer training to them (which he would love to), he is not allowed to by State Law. He would have to hire more licensed plumbers first, but he can’t find qualified licensed plumbers to hire. It’s a vicious cycle. Power needs to be stripped from the unions.

The people you know who couldn’t get “in” would be able to land a job in a heartbeat if those regulations would be repealed. There are countless private employers who would love to hire them, but can’t offer them an apprenticeship because State law says so. I think at this point, my husband would have to hire 3 more licensed plumbers, before he is allowed to add 1 new apprentice. Good luck finding 3 licensed plumbers who are unemployed. The demand is so high, at least in the Danbury area

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Stylo

https://www.cbia.com/news/economy/jo...-crisis-point/

Yikes.

This organization is a joke, pay them no mind.

In the article they state "We need bold reforms to jump start our stalled economy, and we need a retooling of our jobs pipeline" Yet they do not give even one example of how to accomplish this. They also seemed to have forgotten that the CT Dept of Labor lost 20% of their staff about a year ago due to lay offs.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

That’s what I’m saying — it’s union influence that we have these State laws/regulations (which also apply to private non union employers). My husband privately owns a plumbing company (non union) in Danbury. By state law he is only allowed to hire X number of apprentices, based on the number of licensed plumbers he employs. It’s BS

If my husband wanted to hire three apprentices tomorrow and offer training to them (which he would love to), he is not allowed to by State Law. He would have to hire more licensed plumbers first, but he can’t find qualified licensed plumbers to hire. It’s a vicious cycle. Power needs to be stripped from the unions.

The people you know who couldn’t get “in” would be able to land a job in a heartbeat if those regulations would be repealed. There are countless private employers who would love to hire them, but can’t offer them an apprenticeship because State law says so. I think at this point, my husband would have to hire 3 more licensed plumbers, before he is allowed to add 1 new apprentice. Good luck finding 3 licensed plumbers who are unemployed. The demand is so high, at least in the Danbury area

Part of the ratios - which in other states is even tighter - is that the apprentice is supposed to be learning from jouneymen or master, not being left alone to work working. One person cannot effectively train more than a certain number of people while on the job. Masters expect journeymen to produce as well as train - if they have to spend their entire day watching multiple apprentices, the job will take much longer and cost the master more.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I do not consider CBIA to be a very objective source. The recent job losses are concerning but several of our state's major industries are on a major hiring spree. Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky, Electric Boat and many of their subcontractors are adding thousands which will help the state. Still the state does have a lot to do to improve our economy. I just hope the Legislature and Governor Malloy get their act together to fix it. Jay

CBIA is correct.

We are bleeding jobs in a terrific national economic period.

Bear in mind, a -6,600 month happened the same quarter as -3,500.

National gains are in the millions.

Ct is bleeding jobs.

This is dire.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by robr2

Part of the ratios - which in other states is even tighter - is that the apprentice is supposed to be learning from jouneymen or master, not being left alone to work working. One person cannot effectively train more than a certain number of people while on the job. Masters expect journeymen to produce as well as train - if they have to spend their entire day watching multiple apprentices, the job will take much longer and cost the master more.

I definitely get that, but it would be nice if each of his plumbers could have an apprentice to take with to jobs. Faster turnaround, more jobs getting done by each truck each day. Everyone would benefit. The apprentice for the necessary training he needs before he can sit for his journeyman’s license, and the company.

[beerbeer]

Connecticut near end of line for state tax burden.

Best And Worst States For Taxes | Forbes

No. 48: Connecticut

• State and local tax burden: 11.90%
• Effective state tax rate ($50,000 taxable income): 4.60%
• Highest tax bracket: $250,000
• Rate at highest tax bracket: 6.70%
• Per Capita Income: $60,287

[Stylo]

How’s 11.9% computed?

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

Connecticut near end of line for state tax burden.

Best And Worst States For Taxes | Forbes

No. 48: Connecticut

• State and local tax burden: 11.90%
• Effective state tax rate ($50,000 taxable income): 4.60%
• Highest tax bracket: $250,000
• Rate at highest tax bracket: 6.70%
• Per Capita Income: $60,287

While I haven't had the chance to validate the data for CT, however it's telling that NY, NJ rank 50th, 49th, respectively. Pretty telling isn't it? Maybe CT should follow the rest of New England states in creating a tax regime that well balanced and less burdensome to residents and businesses. The more CT follows the NY model, the more it's going to be dragged down.

NY, particularly NYC is a terrible value from the tax and cost of living perspective - the sooner CT moves away from it, the better off it will be. Places like Fairfield Co. are relying on NYC for business and residents because NY is that much worse from a tax perspective.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by New Englander

While I haven't had the chance to validate the data for CT, however it's telling that NY, NJ rank 50th, 49th, respectively. Pretty telling isn't it? Maybe CT should follow the rest of New England states in creating a tax regime that well balanced and less burdensome to residents and businesses. The more CT follows the NY model, the more it's going to be dragged down.

NY, particularly NYC is a terrible value from the tax and cost of living perspective - the sooner CT moves away from it, the better off it will be. Places like Fairfield Co. are relying on NYC for business and residents because NY is that much worse from a tax perspective.