Memphis steel firm teams with TN college for top apprenticeships

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A local steel production company is being recognized by Tennessee on National Apprenticeship Day on Wednesday for making high-paying jobs in the steel industry more attainable.
Morgan Steel in South Memphis, a carbon steel distributor and fabricator based in Memphis and Greenville, Texas, partnered with the Tennessee College of Applied Technology to create a unique apprenticeship program.
The apprenticeship will provide workers skills needed to program, operate and maintain robot welders as well as production using Artificial Intelligence.
Ja Rule, Ashanti headline tour at the Landers Center
'To be able to help people better themselves and give them a whole new level of technical information and technical skills that will be able to create a trade for them that they'll be able to have for the rest of their life,' said Michael Sargent, Morgan Steel, Chief Operating Officer.
Morgan Steel is recognized for its program by the State of Tennessee.
Applicants with a high school diploma or GED accepted in the one year apprenticeship program would make $17 an hour as the starting pay.
Monday's announcement comes as President Trump signs two executive orders, one preparing Americans for high-paying, skilled trade jobs of the future the second for advancing AI education for American youth.
Man shot in Orange Mound: MPD
'This opportunity today shows us the importance of trades and CCTE education. So from a City perspective, we now have another avenue, another partner that we can partner with to help direct our students to internships and career employment long term,' said Brian Harris, Director of Youth Service, City of Memphis.
For more information on how to apply for an apprenticeship, click here for Morgan Steel or the Tennessee College of Applied Technology. You must have a high school diploma or GED to apply.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

21 minutes ago

• Forbes

What The Workday Lawsuit Reveals About AI Bias—And How To Prevent It

Workday, Inc is facing a collective-action lawsuit based on claims that the artificial intelligence ... More used by the company to screen job applicants discriminated against candidates. HR finance company Workday, Inc is facing a collective-action lawsuit based on claims that the artificial intelligence used by the company to screen job applicants discriminated against candidates 40 years old and over. In 2024, Derek Mobley filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Workday, alleging that their algorithm-based job applicant screening system discriminated against him and other applicants based on race, age and disability. Four additional plaintiffs have now accused the company of age discrimination. A Workday spokesperson refuted the claims to HR Drive stating 'This is a preliminary ruling at an early stage of this case, and before the facts have been established. We're confident that once those facts are presented to the court, the plaintiff's claims will be dismissed.' Data compiled by DemandSage estimates that in 2025, 87% of companies use AI for recruitment. Applicant tracking systems like Workable, Bamboo HR, Pinpoint ATS, and Rippling, which are used by employers to help manage the recruitment and hiring process, rely on AI to help streamline and automate the recruitment process. Companies are leaning heavily on AI to make crucial recruitment and hiring decisions, but these tools used so frequently during the employment process are laden with bias. One example was an AI recruiting tool used by Inc's machine-learning specialists, which was found to discriminate against women—the company scrapped the tool in 2018. AI bias is pervasive in recruitment and hiring tools. AI bias is pervasive in recruitment and hiring tools. A 2024 study from the University of Washington revealed racial and gender bias in AI tools used to screen resumes. There can be data bias, which is when AI systems are trained on biased data that can contain an overrepresentation of some groups (white people for example) and an underrepresented of other groups (non-white people for example). This can manifest into an AI tool that ends up rejecting qualified job candidates because it was trained on biased data. There is also algorithmic bias, which can include developer coding mistakes, where a developer's biases become embedded into an algorithm. An example of this is an AI system designed to flag job applicants whose resume's include certain terms meant to signal leadership skills like 'debate team,' 'captain' or 'president.' These key terms could end up filtering out job candidates from less affluent backgrounds or underrepresented racial groups, whose leadership potential might show up in non-traditional ways. Two other types of bias, proxy data bias and evaluation bias, can show up in recruitment and hiring tools. Proxy data bias can be described as the bias that shows up when proxies, or substitutes, are used for attributes like race and gender. An example of this is an algorithm that prioritizes job candidates who attended Ivy League or elite institutions, which may filter out candidates who went to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), community colleges or state schools. Evaluation bias is the bias that results when evaluating the data. An example of this is if an organization is assessing a candidate for culture fit (which is notoriously biased), and trains an AI tool to prioritize job candidates who have particular hobbies listed on their resumes or who communicate in particular ways, which can bias candidates from cultures outside of the dominant norm. An algorithm that prioritizes job candidates who attended Ivy League or elite institutions may ... More filter out candidates who went to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). As more organizations use AI to help with employment decisions, there are several steps that should be taken to mitigate the bias often baked into these tools. First, workplaces that utilize AI tools for hiring, selection and recruitment decisions should demand transparency from vendors to gain a deeper understanding of how the data was trained and what is being done to ensure the data has been audited for bias related to factors like race, gender, age and disability. In addition, companies should request frequent audits from the vendors to assess AI tool for bias. It's important for organizations to partner with experts in ethical AI usage in the workplace to ensure that when AI is integrated into workplace systems, there are safeguards in place. For example, an expert may assess whether job candidates from HBCUs are being filtered out of the talent pool. When using AI in any capacity in the workplace, it's helpful to seek guidance from your legal counsel or legal team to ensure AI tools are compliant with local and state laws. Transparency also applies to workplaces—organizations should be candid about AI usage during the employment process and should always consider alternative evaluation methods. AI, in many ways, has made our lives easier, more convenient and more accessible but there are valid concerns when it comes to AI usage and fairness. If equity is the goal and your workplace uses AI for recruitment and hiring decisions, it's good to trust the AI (to a reasonable extent) but always verify. AI is a powerful way to complement the employment process but should never replace human oversight.

CNN

35 minutes ago

• CNN

What would you need to earn to feel financially secure? A quarter of Americans say $150,000 or more

Almost half of Americans (45%) think they would need to make $100,000 or more a year to 'feel financially secure' or 'comfortable,' according to a new survey from Bankrate. Breaking that down further, a quarter of respondents in total (26%) put the number at $150,000 or more. Among them, 8% said they would need to earn between $200,000 and $499,999, while another 8% said $500,000 or more. On the flip side, nearly half of respondents (45%) said they would feel financially secure making less than six figures, with 34% saying they would feel comfortable making between $50,00 and $99,999. The online survey, conducted by YouGov and taken by 2,260 US adults in mid-May, also asked 'What annual income would you need to feel rich/attain financial freedom?' More than half (55%) put the number at $200,000 or more. Among them, a quarter (26%) said it would take at least $1 million a year, while 13% said they would need to earn somewhere between $500,000 and $999,999. More than half of respondents (56%) said they needed to earn more than they are currently making to feel secure. So what do Americans make in reality? Based on the latest Census data, median US household income in 2023 was $80,610. That's the mid-point on incomes, meaning half of US households made less. But that median is across all households regardless of size. In family households specifically — where two or more people live — the median was $102,800. Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples. In terms of individual incomes in 2023, the median income of a full-time worker with earnings working year round was $60,070. Neither the Bankrate survey nor the respondents specified what was meant by the terms 'financially secure' or 'rich,' nor what financial freedom meant to them. The answer, of course, will always be highly subjective. How much you personally think you need is going to be influenced by many factors, including: Your current income, your age, whether you have children, where you live, how much debt you have and what your monthly expenses are. (Not to mention assets that contribute to your net worth, such as a 401(k) or brokerage account, a home or a business. But the survey didn't address that issue.) Among Bankrate survey respondents, 54% of those who already made $100,000 or more said they'd need to make at least $150,000 to feel financially secure. Gen Xers (ages 45 to 60) were most likely (35%) to say they'd need to earn $150,000 or more to live comfortably, compared to 26% of millennials (ages 29 to 44) and 20% of Gen Zers (ages 18 to 28). Among parents with children under 18, 35% indicated earning $150,000 or more a year would make them feel financially secure. And those most likely to say they'd need to earn $1 million or more to feel financially free were parents whose children were 18 or older (33%). Bankrate asked respondents how they would describe their current level of financial security. Overall, most (77%) said they did not feel 'completely financially secure,' including 32% who said they didn't think they ever would. Those most likely to say they did feel 'completely financially secure' were people making at least $100,000. Within that income group, 42% of respondents said they considered themselves secure. Only a quarter of those in the $50,000 to $79,999 income group and 12% of those making less than $50,000 said the same. In terms of life stages, large majorities of each generation said they don't feel financially secure, including 84% of Gen Xers; 80% of Gen Zers; 79% of millennials and 69% of Baby Boomers. 'Getting rich may have once been what many Americans fantasized about, but now, simply living comfortably feels like the new aspiration, as economic challenges make financial stability a rare luxury,' said Bankrate economic analyst Sarah Foster.

Entrepreneur

37 minutes ago

• Entrepreneur

Proof Over Pitch

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. You're reading Entrepreneur United Kingdom, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. "In 2024, using AI felt like trying to squeeze answers from a confused intern - slow, vague, and always needing correction." By 2025, says entrepreneur and mentor Mike Greene, things have changed. "Now, it's like having a sharp-thinking partner who's always on." He points to a shift in pace: "Say I've got to prep a talk for a room of B2B founders. In under 10 minutes, AI helps me outline it, punch it up, and add a data-driven hook. That used to take a day." He continues: "Or say I'm building a go-to-market strategy, I'll drop in a few bullet points, and it helps me instantly spot gaps or test positioning angles I wouldn't have thought of at speed." "Last year, it was impressive but unreliable. Now it's sharper and I use it for idea generation and writing. I move through execution faster than ever. It's not about replacing anyone. It's about removing friction so you can focus on your core priorities." This clarity extends beyond technology. Greene is blunt about his own mistakes: "I no longer fall for polished decks and big promises. I'd take case studies at face value. 'We helped Company X 10x their revenue in 3 months!' Sure you did." "This can be an expensive mistake as you are taking presentation for performance. Instead, I now ask for specifics. I look for independent proof, not the one client who loved them, but patterns, repeatability and raw data." "I've stopped confusing activity with accomplishment. Posting on LinkedIn doesn't mean someone's growing the business. Jumping on Zooms all day isn't execution. Since only trusting what can be evidenced, the quality of people and results around me has gone up massively." He has changed his view on team-building too. "I used to think hiring fast showed ambition, that the more people on the payroll, the more serious you looked. Turns out, more people often mean more overhead, more complexity, and more distractions from actually building something that works." "With focus, AI, and external input, you can avoid bad hires and stay agile. From six to seven figures, you need others to give you that push in the right direction as you can't be an expert in everything. Eight to nine? It's all about building it to run without you." For UK founders, Greene believes one of the greatest assets remains underappreciated. "Brand Britain." "Look past the headlines. Outside the UK, 'British' still signals quality. We've got a global trust halo that most founders don't even realise they're standing under." "And then there's the structural support: schemes like SEIS and EIS mean UK startups can de-risk early investment like almost nowhere else." "If you know how to position it, the UK's still a phenomenal place to start, grow, and raise. But too many founders ignore that edge, trying to mimic Silicon Valley instead of doubling down on what makes Britain bankable." "We've got investor appetite, consumer trust, and a strong ecosystem, if you know how to use it." Looking to the future, Greene sees substance overtaking noise. "The noise fades. Truth rises." "Right now, startup culture is noisy. As capital tightens and AI levels the playing field, only the founders who deliver real value will last, backed by proof not hype equipped with real results that speak for themselves."