This is the third in a series of Industry Perspectives Op-Ed columns where Ken Baerg of Canada Works shares his views on British Columbia’s Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) framework. This article delves into Baerg’s opinion on how CBAs fall short of effective training and workforce development.
The so-called Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) program rolled out by the NDP in July of 2018 has been exposed for what it is: a mutual back-scratching exercise between B.C. Premier John Horgan’s government and their key historical donors in the Building Trades Unions (BTU). Through this program the BTU has been granted exclusive access to billions worth of taxpayer funded infrastructure construction projects to the exclusion of 85 per cent of the construction union that does not belong to the one of the government anointed craft unions making up the BTU.
The development of the CBA program was a less-than-masterful job in reverse engineering. Starting with the end in mind, the NDP and the BTU created a closed model that ensured jobs like the construction of the Pattullo Bridge, the Broadway Subway expansion and the widening of Highway 1 between Kamloops and the Alberta border are to be crewed exclusively by the BTUs and will be covered by BTU collective agreements.
Of course, an inexplicable exercise in playing favourites with public money requires creative rationalization.
The government needed to provide some explanation for the windfall of dues, pension and training money that would go to a group that represents a mere 15 per cent of the construction workforce in B.C.
They landed on a number of solutions to problems that don’t actually exist, at least not in the manner they want people to believe they do.
The story goes that CBAs will be a vehicle to create opportunities for all manner of under-represented groups, with a particular focus on training B.C.’s workforce for today and tomorrow. Motherhood and apple pie, right?
When it comes to training and workforce development in B.C., it’s a fact that the statistics paint an ominous picture.
BuildForce Canada estimates there will be more than 25,000 retirees in B.C.’s construction sector in the next 10 years.
That reality, combined with ongoing and significant industrial and civil projects, has the province facing a scenario with a projected 8,000 construction jobs going unfilled within that same timeframe.
There are many painfully obvious problems with exclusive CBAs being advanced as an answer to training and workforce development challenges.
Three significant issues are:
Effective training and workforce development programs require all industry stakeholders to promote the industry’s many virtues and opportunities.
With little doubt, the construction industry has recruitment challenges. Employees must be willing to be mobile and to accept the temporary nature of projects. Additionally, while much has been done, the construction industry needs to continue to check itself to ensure that the culture is inviting to a broad cross section of people.
However, it must be reinforced that the challenges and complexities of recruitment will not be addressed by the imposition of a CBA.
In fact, CBAs place barriers to opportunity and recruitment by imposing a BTU-only model that has been rejected by 85 per cent of B.C.’s construction workers.
CBAs are not a benign presence for purposes of recruitment.
Rather, they present yet one more barrier to drawing the necessary workers to the industry.
Effective training and workforce development programs require the broadest possible public engagement.
The CBA program was built by the NDP and the BTU behind closed doors without industry or public input. The result was an exclusive arrangement with the BTUs 15 per cent market share – hardly broad or inclusive. Furthermore, while the CBA program has been applied to a few large projects that will last for a few years, there are many other publicly funded construction projects that have been left out. If the CBA program is truly the answer to industry’s long-term woes when it comes to training and workforce development, why is it not being applied uniformly to all government-backed projects?
The answer, of course, is that the underlying agenda needs a gentle, inoffensive introduction – and perhaps a majority government – to find its full stride.
The BTUs historical record on training has more to do with controlling their small slice of the market than actually responding to market needs.
The traditional unions are being given exclusive access, including millions of dollars into their training programs, when it is well documented that in several key trades, they train less than one in five skilled workers in the province.
Broader industry including progressive unions, employer associations and individual employers, carry the responsibility for the vast majority of the training that happens in B.C., exposing once again that CBAs are a political tool for the NDP to reward their union allies but add no value to workers.
The challenges of recruitment and retention in the construction sector warrant an intentional and strategic approach, one that engages all stakeholders regardless of political or union affiliation. There is simply no rational defense for a workforce development strategy that ties training to a select group of unions representing a small slice of the province’s construction workforce.
The CBA program, as envisaged by the NDP and their allies in the BTU, is unquestionably terrible public policy that only serves to hinder what should be a collective effort by industry to train and develop a workforce for the impending labour shortage in our province.
Ken Baerg is the executive director of Canada Works, the Council of Progressive Canadian Unions. Send comments and Industry Perspectives op-ed ideas to editor@journalofcommerce.com.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed