Union deals have worked before

Special to The Herald

The B.C. government recently announced that major new public infrastructure projects, such as the highway expansion east of Kamloops, will be subject to a community benefits agreement.

The agreement requires that public benefits flow not only from the outcome of a project, but also from the process of building it.

The move was immediately criticized by some industry groups and pundits, who have been wringing their hands about the fact that workers will become union members while employed on projects these projects (apparently on the assumption that this is a bad thing). Yet there has been surprisingly little discussion of the well-established benefits of this model.

Two of the key objectives of this new agreement are “maximizing apprenticeship opportunities on major public infrastructure projects” and “priority hiring and training of indigenous peoples and women.”

B.C. is experiencing a sustained shortfall of skilled tradespeople, and that shortage is expected to worsen in the coming years. B.C.’s apprenticeship system has been seriously eroded over the past decade. To help address this, the new CBA model will require that 25 per cent of positions on major new infrastructure projects are filled by apprentices.

The second objective, boosting the representation of women and indigenous peoples in the trades, is also a welcome move. There is strong evidence that a CBA can deliver.

In fact, 18 years ago, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published research on a similar public infrastructure agreement, which was used in building the Vancouver Island Highway in the 1990s. The CCPA study, “The Road to Equity,” evaluated whether the agreement was able to achieve its equity goals.

The degree of success was impressive. In 1994, Indigenous peoples, women, people with disabilities and visible minorities worked eight per cent of the total hours on the project, and by 1998 this had risen to just over 22 per cent of total hours. By contrast, the authors cite a 1990 survey of unionized construction workers that had found less than one per cent of representation of Indigenous peoples and women.

The authors concluded that the agreement was “stunningly successful” at achieving its equity goals and “should be a template for other large-scale construction projects in B.C.”

Interestingly, they also note that local hiring provisions (also a feature of the newly-announced CBA) helped keep down project costs, since “a larger number of smaller contracts than usual were tendered,” which created more competition and a higher number of average bids per contract.

When making large public investments in infrastructure projects, it makes sense to get the maximum possible benefits. Since we know industry isn’t taking on enough apprentices, it makes sense to require more apprentices. Similarly, since we know the industry tends to be male-dominated, it makes sense to ensure that the funds are directed to ensuring equity hiring and training opportunities.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that, despite some loud criticisms, recent polling found overwhelming public support for using community benefits agreements.

As we’ve seen, B.C. has direct experience with the model—and clear evidence that it can work.

Alex Hemingway is an economist and public finance policy analyst at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – B.C. Office.