Mike Rowe And PureTalk Team Up On Trades For America's Military Vets
Mike Rowe's new skilled trades partnership is a logical next step in his tireless advocacy for trades careers. Last month the former host of the long-running show 'Dirty Jobs' and CEO of his own trades non-profit, the mikeroweWORKS Foundation, announced a partnership with veteran-run Covington, Georgia-based wireless provider PureTalk to promote skilled trades among America's military vets.
Why veterans? 'Because they've got the soft skills down,' Rowe told me on my Manufacturing Talks Web Show and Podcast yesterday. 'They're going to show up on time. They're going to stay late if need be. They'll tuck their shirt in. You know, you don't have to worry about so many of the things that employers struggle with beyond the skill itself. They're teachable by and large. But of course, more than that, we kind of owe them, you know?'
One practitioner with long experience with veterans and trades training couldn't agree more. Tony Lawrence is the program manager for another partnership in that world, the Academy for Advanced Manufacturing, through which Rockwell Automation and ManpowerGroup provide a free 12-week program in industrial automation for select military veterans. 'I've seen firsthand the extraordinary potential our U.S. veterans bring to the skilled trades,' he told me via email. 'Veterans possess a unique combination of discipline, leadership, and technical aptitude that aligns perfectly with the demands of advanced manufacturing and other high-skill industries. Yet, many transitioning service members face challenges translating their military experience into civilian credentials.'
That's where Rowe and the leaders at PureTalk want to help. 'There ought to be a vet-friendly on-ramp into every business as far as I'm concerned, but especially the skilled trades,' said Rowe.
The new partnership, which culminated in a $50,000 donation PureTalk made last year to Rowe's mikeroweWORKS Foundation, is something Rowe says developed over the past several years. 'PureTalk was a bit of a surprise, because you don't think of a wireless company as a skilled labor play, right?' he explained. 'But I do this podcast… called 'The Way I Heard It,' and we have all kinds of advertisers who like to come and I'm increasingly focused on only working with companies who make something in America, because I'm passionate about that, or who share my belief that closing the skills gap has become a matter of national security, and just through weird circumstances, these guys at PureTalk, they were advertising on my podcast. And I was in Georgia almost a year ago, and decided to drop in on them, you know, just to say hi and introduce myself. And I met the owner of the company, and I saw the fact that, you know, they've got this great campus down in Covington… They gave me the nickel tour and when I left, I said, 'Look, if there's anything I can ever do with you guys beyond this podcast relationship, let me know.' Like a week later, the owner made a very generous donation to my foundation, and I love that, you know, obviously. And then I look closer and what they're doing with our veterans—America's Warrior Partnership is an incredible foundation, and they're super supportive of that. I just like them.'
According to PureTalk's leaders, that feeling is mutual. 'We're proud to partner with Mike Rowe, whose longstanding leadership in advocating for skilled labor and supporting veterans aligns perfectly with PureTalk's mission,' said William Curry, chief strategy officer at PureTalk's parent company Telrite Holdings, via email. 'It's been a great journey so far, from backing Mike's podcast, 'The Way I Heard It,' and the impactful work of the mikeroweWORKS Foundation, to now expanding our partnership to help veterans and hardworking Americans find the support and connection they deserve.'
That approach rings true for Lawrence. 'That's where programs like ours step in—bridging the gap through intensive training, mentorship, and direct pathways to employment,' he said. 'By investing in our veterans and equipping them with 21st-century skills, we're not just filling a critical workforce gap—we're honoring their service with opportunity. Skilled trades are the backbone of our economy, and empowering veterans to lead in these fields is both a smart business strategy and a national imperative."
For Rowe, it's also about just doing the right thing for those of our citizens who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. 'When I think about our vets... I think about what we do to prepare them for the fight,' he said. 'I think about boot camp and basic training. And we're pretty good at getting a citizen ready to be a war fighter, but we're not real good at getting a war fighter ready to transition back into polite society, right? We need a reverse boot camp of some kind, and I'm doing what I can to try and push that boulder up the hill too.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise
Both the House and Senate versions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include provisions to preempt ... More state regulation of AI. As President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans seek to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's (TCJA) personal income tax rate cuts as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), how to deal with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap remains a key point of contention. The House-approved version of OBBBA raises the TCJA's $10,000 per household SALT cap to $40,000 but the Senate proposal keeps it at $10,000. The SALT cap isn't the only part of OBBBA that has divided some Republicans. Opponents of the TCJA's SALT cap often accuse it of targeting blue states, which tend to have relatively higher tax burdens and are where most SALT beneficiaries live. The same criticism, however, cannot be leveled at the OBBBA provision prohibiting states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI), a proposal that has been the subject of some GOP criticism. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, voted for OBBBA but has since derided the moratorium on state regulation of AI included in the bill. 'This needs to be stripped out in the Senate,' Greene wrote about OBBBA's AI preemption provision in a June 6 post on X. 'When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.' 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' Greene added. 'Not the other way around.' Neil Chilson, former chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, responded to the sentiment expressed by Greene in a June 10 X post: 'A lot of 'conservatives' seem desperate to have California (a state that is having some difficulties governing itself right now) regulate how the US does AI,' Chilson wrote, adding that 'China thanks you.' The sort of progressive state regulation of AI development that Greene is vowing to defend is now on display in Albany, where the New York Assembly and Senate recently passed the RAISE Act, legislation that would impose new regulations on companies, both large and small, that deal with AI. That legislation is now on Governor Kathy Hochul's (D) desk awaiting her consideration. 'The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors,' noted a letter that NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses, sent to Governor Hochul on June 17. That letter, which urged Hochul to veto the RAISE Act, added that the bill 'would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression.' Bipartisan opposition to the AI preemption provision in OBBBA is not surprising. Though capping the SALT deduction disproportionately affects blue state taxpayers, OBBBA's federal preemption of state AI regulation would have implications for red and blue states alike. That's because governors and lawmakers in red states have proved just as inclined as their blue state counterparts to propose state-level regulation of AI. Take Texas, commonly viewed as one of the reddest and most conservatively governed states in the nation, and for good reason. Texas, where Republicans control every statewide office and both chambers of the legislature, is one of only eight states that does not impose an income tax. It's a right-to-work state where leading politicians tout freedom, liberty, and limited government. It's also a state where Republican lawmakers have been seeking to regulate AI. In late 2024, Texas Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R) introduced the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), legislation to establish a state-level regulatory regime affecting companies operating in the AI space. Following its introduction, TRAIGA was quickly met with opposition from free market organizations. 'Though well-intentioned, this draft bill imposes restrictive regulations and burdensome compliance costs that risk stifling Texas's thriving artificial intelligence (AI) sector,' a coalition of conservative organizations wrote in a joint letter to Texas legislators. 'Texas has a unique opportunity to be a leader in AI innovation, but TRAIGA's approach threatens to undermine that potential. It would also be detrimental as a policy framework for other states or the federal government.' In response to pushback, Representative Capriglione scaled back TRAIGA, reworked it, and refiled it as House Bill 149. HB 149, which ultimately passed both chambers, is more narrow in scope than the original version of TRAIGA, with HB 149 focusing on government utilization and development of AI. 'Under the bill, government agencies will be required to disclose to consumers when they are interacting with an AI system,' noted a Transparency Coalition blog post on HB 149. 'Systems will be prohibited from 'dark pattern' interaction, or any 'user interface designed or manipulated with the effect of substantially subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice.'' 'TRAIGA also bans the government from using AI to create 'social scores' for users, and from using biometric data without consent,' the Transparency Coalition added. 'Government agencies also are prohibited from discriminating against users based on their political viewpoints, as well as from blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, or otherwise limiting users.' Aside from Texas, legislation seeking to regulate AI has been introduced in most state capitals, in both blue and red states. It's not only free market voices and tech industry leaders who are expressing concerns about the adverse effects that would stem from a 50-state patchwork of overlapping and conflicting AI regulations. 'I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing, a patchwork quilt of regulations, Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most, what that means in terms of AI development here,' Governor Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) said last month. Shortly after Colorado lawmakers enacted their AI bill in 2024, Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo.) urged congress to enact federal legislation preempting state regulation of AI. 'There are better ways for states to address AI concerns than a heavy-handed, top-down, paperwork-intensive regulatory approach,' Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) wrote in the veto statement explaining his decision to reject an AI regulation bill passed by the Democrat-led Virginia Legislature. 'The role of government in safeguarding AI practices should be one that enables and empowers innovators to create and grow, not one that stifles progress and places onerous burdens on our Commonwealth's many business owners.' Proponents of federal preemption of state AI regulation, which includes many conservatives who advocate for pushing most policy decisions down to the states, believe that a patchwork of 50 separate state regulatory regimes for AI would put the U.S. at a disadvantage when it comes to development of AI. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, says there is a precedent for a federal moratorium on state AI regulations. That precedent is the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which was passed by a GOP-run congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 'That federal pause on state taxes for internet access helped fuel the digital revolution,' writes Ginn. 'AI deserves the same breathing room. If the moratorium or something like it doesn't happen, America risks ceding the future to countries like China, where communist governing directs resources rather than profits.' Those remarks from Ginn, who served in the first Trump administration, sound a similar note to those recently delivered by a member of the second Trump administration. In an address to the AWS Public Sector Summit, David Sacks — the venture capitalist, technologist, and first ever White House AI czar — described the state-level efforts to regulate AI as 'fear-mongering', adding that a 50-state patchwork of varying and conflicting AI regulatory regimes across the U.S. could 'end up killing these things in the cradle.' 'If we had taken this approach towards the internet, if we had basically had a fear-based approach towards regulation and passed hundreds or thousands of regulations, I don't think the U.S. would become the dominant country in the internet,' Sacks added, calling the internet 'one of the crown jewels of the American economy.' There is bipartisan agreement about the need for federal preemption of state AI regulations and there is also bipartisan opposition to such a federal moratorium. The matter will be decided, however, by Republicans on Capitol Hill. 'Republicans have a pretty straightforward choice on AI,' writes Zach Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, noting that the choices are 'follow Trump's lead and use their Congressional majority to set a light touch approach, or miss the moment and let California regulate it into oblivion.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump Organization is selling a cellphone. Here are all the problems with it
This week, President Donald Trump has been overseeing ramped-up ICE raids in major cities and navigating conflict in the Middle East. His family's business is also trying to sell you a cellphone. The Trump Organization announced on Monday the launch of a smartphone that doesn't exist and a mediocre phone plan to go with it. 'Our MADE IN THE USA 'T1™ Phone' is available for pre-order now,' reads the website for Trump Mobile, run by a new business called T1 Mobile LLC that's licensing the Trump family name. 'The 'T1™ Phone' will be available in September 2025.' The '47 Plan' will be available for $47.45 a month – a symbolic nod to him being the 45th and 47th president. Tech and gadget experts say this specific phone, at this specific price point, manufactured entirely on American soil, cannot possibly exist by September of this year. By entering the cellphone market, the Trump Organization would be competing directly with American-based companies like Apple, and operating in an industry that's heavily regulated by the federal government. Ethics watchdogs say this, along with the cryptocurrency, watches, shoes, Bibles and other heavily branded products, are examples of the Trump family financially benefiting from the patriarch's role as president, profiting off supporters and potentially foreign governments, and stomping on the traditional norms and guardrails of the presidency in a way that's even more brazen than in his first term. 'It really seems to be just a blatant conflict of interest at every turn,' said Meghan Faulkner, the communications director for Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. A 'bad and impossible' phone – and the plan's not much better In a press release on the president's eldest sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump touted 5G service through three existing major carriers, roadside assistance through Drive America and telehealth services from an unnamed provider — plus free long-distance calling, which has been widely available from all cell service providers for the past 20 years. The service also promises customer service based in America where customers can speak to 'a real person.' 'Hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that's affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on,' reads a quote from Eric Trump. But the plan isn't particularly affordable when you look at comparable ones on the market: Mint Mobile is $30 a month, and Verizon's Visible is only $25 a month. The plan doesn't require you to buy a new phone to use it. But it is selling one: The T1 Phone 8002 (gold version). The computer-edited image on the preorder page does not depict a real phone that exists right now. And that's not the only confusing thing, according to David Pierce, editor-at-large for The Verge, who wrote that it looks 'both bad and impossible.' There's been a lot of talk this year about making smartphones in the United States. Trump threatened a 25% tariff specifically on smartphone companies unless they agreed to move manufacturing stateside. The reason Apple and other companies don't immediately shift to making smartphones here is pretty simple: They can't. We don't have the factories, we don't have the parts pipeline established, and we don't have the workforce with the skills needed to make a highly sophisticated product like an iPhone. It's not impossible to build factories and upskill a workforce. But it would take years to get it all set up, and would make phones cost a lot more. Experts told CNBC the price of an iPhone 16 Pro — currently available on Apple's website starting at $999 — made in America would wind up somewhere in the ballpark of $1,500 to $3,500. And CEOs are unlikely to make that kind of major investment when Trump keeps waffling on tariffs. So how is the Trump Organization going to set that up in three months and sell their phone for $500? Also pretty simple, Pierce said: They aren't. 'The idea that you're going to do it between now and September for $500 is just lunacy,' he said. What's most likely to happen, he said, is they're going to rebadge an existing phone — take a cheaper model already on the market and rebrand it. A few different tech reporters have tried to figure out which candidate is most likely, based on the specifications listed on the website. A frontrunner appears to be the T-Mobile Revvl 7 5G, which you can buy from Amazon right now for $169. Is Trump Mobile a conflict of interest for the president? Technically speaking, President Trump no longer runs the Trump Organization. When he first became president, he bucked historic precedent by refusing to fully divest from his company by selling his assets or placing them in a blind trust, like Jimmy Carter did with his family peanut farm. Instead, he put the Trump Organization in a revocable trust controlled by his oldest sons. Throughout Trump's political career, the Trump Organization has leveraged the president's name, slogan and office to sell all sorts of things. In his first term, critics and political opponents raised concerns about how foreign governments, corporate interests and bad actors could access and enrich the president via his golf courses, hotels and Mar-A-Lago clubs. What we've seen so far in his second term is an acceleration of that trend. Today, a foreign government that wouldn't legally be allowed to donate $5 to the Trump campaign can spend an unlimited amount of money buying his cryptocurrency, said Eric Petry, counsel for elections and government programs at the Brennan Center. 'There were unprecedented conflicts of interest in the first Trump term, but everything we're seeing now is well beyond what we saw then,' he said. 'The guardrails are down and we're really seeing an administration unrestrained from norms and tradition.' Foreign governments probably aren't too interested in a phone plan. This seems to be more of an appeal to his base, who seem hungry to spend money on Trump-branded products despite their history of spotty quality. This phone plan isn't the best or most affordable, this phone isn't the best deal for the money. From a personal finance perspective, there's no reason to engage with Trump Mobile. But it's not about that. 'Trump is president and has fans who will buy whatever has his name on it, and they're going to take advantage of that in every way they possibly can,' Pierce said. Presidential campaigns selling merch is nothing new. Remember the Jeb Bush guacamole bowl? But these aren't campaign donations, which are tightly regulated with transparency requirements. These sales represent profits for Trump's company and family members. So that's one potential conflict of interest. Though not the only one: Again, this plan and phone would compete with both American and foreign companies. The telecom industry is regulated by the federal government, and Trump has never been shy about asking for special treatment from officials he appointed. Petry brought up a couple hypothetical scenarios: Could new federal regulations tip the industry's scales in favor of Trump Mobile? Will every federal employee be required to carry a government-purchased T1 Phone 8002 (gold version)? There aren't a ton of checks on the president's ability to profit from his office and engage in self-dealing. That's because every other president wanted to observe those norms without them having to be enforced, said Faulkner. Congress has the ability to conduct oversight on these things and hold hearings on emoluments and conflicts of interest – a responsibility members from the president's party, which currently controls both houses, have shown no interest in upholding. So the Trump Organization and affiliated companies can continue their efforts to sell you a cellphone (and a watch, and a pair of shoes, and more or less whatever else they want). From a consumer standpoint, you're probably better off hanging on to your current model.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Take a look inside a vault used by the superrich to store gold, jewelry — and hard drives full of crypto
IBV International Vaults offers secure storage for valuables such as gold and bitcoin. The company serves 40,000 customers across locations in London, Dubai, and South Africa. The London branch is situated on Park Lane in Mayfair, one of the city's most exclusive districts. When you're part of the world's superrich elite, sometimes a regular safety deposit box just doesn't cut it. That's where companies like IBV International Vaults come in. IBV, which was founded in South Africa, provides secure storage for some 40,000 customers at locations including London, Dubai, and Cape Town. Business Insider recently took a tour of IBV's London facility, which boasts security features including bullet-resistant glass and biometric scanners to protect the gold, jewels, and even bitcoin hard drives in its vaults. Located on Park Lane in Mayfair, one of London's swankiest districts, here's what the vaults look like. It all started in 2002. The idea for IBV dates back to 2002 when founder and chairman Ashok Sewnarain overheard a woman at a vault in a South African bank being told that she'd have to wait three years for a safe deposit box. In 2005, he opened the first vault in a mall in Cape Town's Gateway district. Sewnarain's background is in property and budget hotels. Before that, he worked with his dad after dropping out of college. He told Business Insider the initial years were the most challenging because it was an individual trying to offer a "world-class private vault facility," rather than a bank or public institution. With help from his family and the decision to launch IBV Gold to sell and trade certified gold bullion, the business started to grow. It now has nine branches, with another in the works. The London branch is in a Grade II-listed building. IBV London opened its doors in a Grade II-listed building opposite a five-star hotel on Park Lane in 2020. The building was previously a bank branch, which Sewnarain wanted for his first UK-based vault. The company then renovated the space to make it ultra-secure. It took years to build a world-class security system. As part of the renovation, managing director Sean Hoey was recruited from Harrods, where he managed the luxury department store's safe deposit boxes. The facility has a state-of-the-art security system. Upon entering, biometric readers scan both fingerprints and irises. Glass protecting the vaults is bullet-resistant, and steel runs from the floor to the ceiling. Seismic detection sensors mean any attempt to tamper with the vaults would immediately trigger alerts. IBV provides a dual key system, whereby the client is supplied with a specialized key that only they can use. To access their vault, they are then escorted by a highly trained officer. Sewnarain said that when IBV started to design vaults, he visited manufacturers and security design companies in the US, Europe, China, and India. "The tiers of security and the level of security are extremely high as the whole ethos of our security is to be proactive rather than reactive," he said. The safe deposit boxes come in a range of sizes. IBV offers vaults in nine sizes, ranging from about enough room for a cellphone, through to an entire room. The smallest options are the most popular among members. Prices range from £600 (about $800) a year, to up to £2.5 million. Offering a similarly exclusive service, Harrods, from which Hoey was poached, is perhaps IBV's big competitor in London. Set up in 1896 and hidden behind a three-ton steel door, users come up with their own personal password and get a key. The smallest box at Harrods, which is slightly bigger than IBV's smallest option, costs £525, with the largest costing £18,250 a year. Several British banks also offer safety deposit boxes for less-well-off customers. At Lloyds Bank, prices for safe deposit boxes range from £200 to £475 a year, while those at Metro Bank start at £240 and go up to £750. IBV doesn't know what the safes contain. Clients have complete confidentiality over the contents of their safe. However, Sewnarain has an idea of the most common items stored based on what some have said. "I think the core assets in the vault are first the physical gold, silver, and platinum, followed by very high-value jewelry and diamonds and watches," he said. Sewnarain said some clients will store documents such as wills, business papers, letters of wishes, and legal contracts. "Also, now with the world of cryptocurrencies, you have cold storage, which is where the people, the investors, who are buying cryptocurrencies and bitcoins, do not want to keep the asset on an exchange or a crypto platform," he explained. "They want to download it onto a USB and make sure that USB is kept in a vault under their control." Clients can use a Rolls-Royce transfer service. IBV's clients are ultra-high-net-worth individuals, who Sewnarain said included entrepreneurs and wealth creators. Applicants must undergo a detailed selection process involving committee approval. Members have access to perks including networking events and Rolls-Royce transfers. IBV recently launched a wealth club, which is complimentary for clients renting the two largest safe deposit boxes. IBV buys, sells, and stores gold. As well as storing gold, IBV also buys and sells the precious metal. "Buyers and sellers love to play the game of taking profit when the price rises and also acquire when the price goes down, like currencies, like property, like equities on the stock exchange, and like crypto," Sewnarain said.
