Taken from the Toronto Sun March 1st, 2019
BY PHIL GILLIES
A number of municipalities, school boards, social housing corporations and other public bodies have longstanding arrangements that see their construction projects built by skilled tradespeople who are members of our province’s major construction unions.
Why have these relationships stood the test of time? Because the employees are well trained, they work safer and, in the long run, are not a significantly greater cost to the taxpayer than their non-unionized counterparts.
This could all be jeopardized by current Ontario Government legislation – Bill 66.
Let me say up front, the Doug Ford government has an avowed goal of spurring economic development in our province and oft states that Ontario is now Open for Business. We support this 100%! This stance is good for the overall economy, which in turn is good for construction.
Some anti-union groups say using their unorganized labour will result in huge savings for public bodies and that there’s no downside to putting these people on jobsites.
Let’s look at these claims.
The union workers are properly trained — they know what they’re doing. The construction unions operate 95 state-of-the-art training centres in every region of Ontario. The unions invest $40 million a year into these centres. If the unionized sector is weakened and can’t do this, who will pick up the cost of this training — the province?
The graduates of these union-supported centres have both classroom and practical experience. In the non-unionized sector, anyone who picks up a hammer can call themselves a contractor. How can this result in high quality work?
Then there’s safety. Unionized worksites are safer in comparison to non-unionized sites.
A study done by the Institute for Work and Health found a 23% lower rate of injuries requiring time off work in the unionized sector. For critical, life-threatening injuries, the gap is even greater — 29% fewer injuries.
Think about it, almost a third fewer serious injuries.
Some opponents of the unionized construction workers say using unorganized labour makes a project 40% cheaper. This is ridiculous. The labour component of a major construction project is about 20% of the cost. The real cost difference between the two groups of workers is closer 4 or 5% of the total project cost. And the unionized workers are more likely to have benefits and a pension. They will be drawing less on publicly funded health and retirement plans. Another saving to the taxpayer.
Construction workers aren’t like many other unionized workers. They don’t get sick days. They only get paid when they work!
Then there’s the quality of work. Unionized construction workers must pass certain tests and accreditations to be allowed on a jobsite. They are usually highly skilled, reliable and time-conscious. A non-union contractor may or may not hire people who have all these attributes.
At the end of the day there is probably little or no difference in the cost to the public of using skilled, properly trained unionized workers.
Finally, there’s quality of work. Do we really want to throw the construction of our hospitals and schools open to just anyone who hangs up a sign and calls himself a contractor? Shoddy or inefficient work can take a toll on budgets.
The present legislation, put in place by former premier Mike Harris, is working well.
There’s an old saying, you get what you pay for.
— Phil Gillies, Executive Director of the Ontario Construction Consortium, is a former MPP for Brantford
