Tim Hudak’s platform, along with arguments such as Walter Pamic’s for 1:1 ratios quickly fall apart as blind rhetoric once placed under scrutiny. It is clearly a biased argument being placed by the employers as a ruse to access cheap labour.
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor :
Tim Hudak’s platform, along with arguments such as (Ontario Electrical League Contractor Government Relations Committee Chair Walter) Pamic’s for 1:1 ratios quickly fall apart as blind rhetoric once placed under scrutiny. It is clearly a biased argument being placed by the employers as a ruse to access cheap labor.
Firstly, the 1:1 ratio is often portrayed as a safer environment, “they would work together, it would be one student, one mentor working hand in hand” says Pamic. Although this romantic ideology sounds wonderful, the reality, as John Grimshaw of the IBEW realizes, apprentices would be grouped together, working unsupervised in even more instances.
The reality is employers push to have workers in groups of one as soon as possible. It does not make economic sense to have two workers work together, hand in hand, unless the specific task requires multiple workers.
On larger jobs in a crew of eight men, one foreman, and one superintendant/project manager/estimator/owner, the foreman and superintendant may be journeymen leaving five apprentices and three journeymen on the actual crew. This would match the 1:1 ratio.
However, in a 3:1 ratio, the numbers change to three apprentices and five journeymen on the crew of eight. Statistically, the 3:1 ratios crew would be far safer. There is plenty of opportunity for one to one work in a crew with three apprentices and five journeymen if a company was so focused on the training of their apprentices.
Secondly, the argument that a company cannot hire labor because the company is restricted with the 3:1 apprentice ratio is a clear indication the company is only looking for cheaper labor.
The facts are clear; there are more journeymen in Ontario in any given trade than employed positions. I recently spoke with two employers in the Golden Horseshoe who have trouble finding journeymen plumbers. I noted that both employers were paying journeymen 30 per cent less than the provincial min rate for their region. Using the doctors and teachers analogy used by Walter Pamic, would a doctor or teacher work for 30 per cent less than the provincial rate?
Lastly, the statistic most often referred to is the baby boomers retiring. The average age for most of the skilled trades in the 50’s. It is easy to prove statistically, based on a retirement age of 60 to 65, that the bodies leaving the trade will outpace the apprentices allowed to enter the trade.
However, this argument also falls apart because it is based on the journeymen retiring fully. I have yet to see any studies done, proving a full retirement. I have seen this argument applied to the workforce as a whole, and it is subject to the same shortcomings. What I am experiencing is numerous boomers, reach the ages of 60 to 65, “retire” just long enough to receive CPP benefits, and then return to work while they continue to receive CPP benefits. Although listed as “retired” by virtue of being on the CPP role, in fact they are still working. This needs to be studied and broken down to prove we are in fact facing a coming shortfall.
Simple economics teaches the law of supply and demand. Increase the supply and you decrease the demand. Decrease the demand, and you drive the wage down. I always took great pride in offering my employees some of the best wage packages in the region. I understood as an employer the symbiotic relationship I had with my employees. If they did not succeed, neither would I.
Sincerely,
Paul Sanecki, B.Comm.
Master Plumber
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed