Upload
vobao
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Submission for Ratio Review of
Construction and Maintenance Electrician (309A)
and
Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C)
Joint Submission by
Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario (ECAO)
and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
- Construction Council of Ontario (IBEW-CCO)
Introductory Submissions
ECAO / IBEW‐CCO:
The Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario (ECAO) represents more than 850 contractors in the
electrical industry. Members and associate members of ECAO undertake the majority of electrical work
in mid‐sized and large projects in ICI sector and in the power sector. ECAO members also do the
majority of electrical work in the high‐rise residential sector. ECAO members also work in the low‐rise
residential sector. The ECAO, through the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency is the designated
employer bargaining agency for the electrical trade in the ICI sector under the Labour Relations Act.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Construction Council of Ontario (IBEW‐CCO)
represents more than 14,000 journeypersons or apprentices in the Electrician trade. The IBEW‐CCOs’s
affiliated locals have members who in Construction and Maintenance Electricians (309A) and Domestic
and Rural Electrician (309C). The IBEW‐CCO is the designated employee bargaining agency for the
2
electrical trade in the ICI sector under the Labour Relations Act. Members of the IBEW‐CCO’s affiliated
locals also work in the power sector and the high‐rise and low‐rise residential sector.
Preliminary Submission Applicable to All Criteria
The most important aspect of an apprenticeship which it is essential to keep in mind when considering
any of the criteria for altering the ratio is that an apprenticeship is first and foremost a job. An
apprenticeship is a distinctive job in that it combines work with training, but an apprenticeship is a job
before anything else. This is critical to understanding the impact of ratio changes. Jobs cannot be
created simply by changing a ratio. Jobs depend on the demand for skilled labour. If the demand is not
there to absorb an increase in the number of apprentices then either journeypersons will be displaced
or apprentices will be laid off and will be unable to complete their training. The task of this Review
Panel is to determine a journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio that meets the economy’s long‐term need for
skilled labour without unbalancing the labour market and thereby causing unemployment to increase
and training resources to be wasted.
Current Ratio and Proposed Changes:
Construction and Maintenance Electrician (309A):
The current ratio provisions are set out in R.R.R.1990, Regulation 1051 (Electrician). This provision is
must understood in terms of a chart and a formula. Indeed that is how the current regulation addresses
the ratio question. Figure No. 1 sets out the current ratio and the ratio that this submission proposes for
Construction and Maintenance Electricians (309A).
3
Figure No. 1 Current and Proposed Ratio for
Construction and Maintenance Electricians (309A)
No. of Journeypersons
No. of Apprentices Allowed
Current Proposed
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 2 3
4 2 4
5 3 4
6 3 4
7 3 5
8 4 5
For every 3 journeypersons after
the 8th journeyperson, 1 additional apprentice
9 4 5
10 4 5
For every 3 journeypersons after the
10th journeyperson, 1 additional apprentice
As can be seen from Figure No. 1, employers with 1 or 2 journeypersons are currently at a 1`:1 ratio. In
the ECAO/IBEW proposal, the 1:1 ratio provision would be extend up to 4 journeypersons. The 3:1 ratio
currently begins after 8 journeypersons. The ECAO/IBEW would commence the 3:1 ratio after 10
journeyperson. For example, under the proposed change, a contractor who currently has 4
journeypersons and 2 apprentices could either change its employment structure to 3 journeypersons
and 3 apprentices or hire up to 2 additional apprentices. For small contactors, this should be an
attractive option. At the same time, the ECAO/IBEW proposal will not flood the system with a surfeit of
apprentices as would happen under more radical proposals that others will make to this Review Panel.
In the course of this submission, we will show that the ECAO/IBEW proposal is a moderate and
responsible proposal which responds to both legitimate industry desires and the economy’s long‐run
needs. At the same time, ECAO/IBEW proposal accomplishes this without jeopardizing the employment
prospects for incumbent journeypersons, newly registered apprentices or recently completed
4
apprentices.
Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C):
The current ratio rule for Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) is the same as for Construction and
Maintenance Electricians (309A). The Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) is restricted to working on
certain classes of buildings: houses, residential buildings with 6 or fewer units and farm buildings. Most
farms today use more power equipment than in the past. Consequently it is unusual for a Domestic and
Rural Electrician (309C) to be doing farm work as today’s farms are essentially industrial operations from
the perspective of their electrical requirements. Domestic and Rural Electricians (309C) are primarily
employed in wiring and repairing electrical systems in the low‐rise residential sector. It is proposed that
the ratio for Domestic and Rural Electricians (309C) be the same as the ratio for Construction and
Maintenance Electricians (309A) except that for work in the low‐rise residential sector, and only for
work in the low‐rise residential sector, the ratio rule would read: “for every 2 journeypersons after the
10th journeyperson, 1 additional apprentice.”
Submissions with Respect to Specified Criteria
Criterion 1: The scope of practice of the trades.
Both the Construction and Maintenance Electricians (309A) and the Domestic and Rural Electrician
(309C) branches of the Electrician trade are compulsory. The Construction and Maintenance Electrician
(309A) is a red seal trade.
5
As noted earlier, the Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) is restricted to working on certain classes of
buildings: houses, residential buildings with 6 or fewer units and farm buildings. The description of the
trade reflects a date understanding of farm technology. Most modern farms use more power
equipment and higher voltages and amperages than in the past. From the perspective of their electrical
requirements, today’s farms are best understood as industrial operations. Consequently it is unusual
for a Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) to be doing farm work. Workers in this branch of the
Electrician trade are primarily employed in wiring and repairing electrical systems in the low‐rise
residential sector. However, it would be an error to conclude that the majority of workers in the low‐
rise residential sector are in the Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) branch. Data from the College of
Trades indicate that there are fewer than 1,000 persons in the Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C)
branch, including apprentices. This compares to almost 50,000 workers in the Construction and
Maintenance Electrician (309A) branch. In the unionized sector, it is common practice to support
workers in the Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) branch to upgrade their skills so as to qualify for
the Construction and Maintenance Electrician (309A) branch.
It has been the experience of the IBEW‐CCO’s affiliates that electrical contractors in the low‐rise
residential sector may have a higher turnover rate Prior to being organized, some of these contractors
appear to have operated with more apprentices that are permitted under the current ratio. It is the
policy of the IBEW‐CCO’s affiliated locals to transition these contractors into compliance with the ratio.
Based on the small number of workers in the Domestic and Rural Electrician (309C) branch and the fact
that a qualification in this branch is often a stepping stone to the higher qualification, the ECAO and the
IBEW‐CCO believe that there is justification for altering the ratio for the Domestic and Rural Electrician
(309C) branch such that the ratio is 2:1 after 10 journeypersons rather than the current 3:1 after 8
6
journeypersons. Below 10 journeypesons the ratios should be the same for the two branches of the
trade. The details of this proposal were set out at the beginning of this submission.
Criterion 2: The apprenticeship program established by the College.
Apprenticeship training for the Electrician trade is delivered through the community colleges. Figure
No. 2 shows the number of registered apprentices in the Electrician trade in Ontario. These data are
published by Statistics Canada, based on its Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS). The
most recent data available are for 2010.
Figure No. 2 Registered Apprentices in the Electrician Trade
Statistics Canada CANSIM Table No. 477-0055
Year No. of Registered
Apprentices
2004 1,125
2005 1,083
2006 1,218
2007 1,350
2008 1,338
2009 1,587
2010 1,479
Since 2004, the number of apprenticeship registrations has increased from 1,125 to 1,479 in 2010,
although registrations reach 1,587 in 2009. Clearly, the current ratio has not impeded a healthy increase
in the number of registered apprentices. Nor has the current ratio constrained the growth or
undermined the viability of the College of Trade’s apprenticeship program in the Electrician trade.
7
We conclude, therefore, that based on Criterion Two, there is no argument to be made for a radical
change in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio. The data are consistent with the moderate changes
proposed by the ECAO and the IBEW.
Criterion 3: How the journeyperson to apprentice ratio for the trade may affect the health and safety of apprentices and journeypersons working in the trade and the public who may be affected by the work.
Health and safety in the Electrician trade requires both comprehensive training and careful supervision.
Evidence of the breadth and depth of safety training required in the Electrician trade can be gleaned
from the Electrical Construction and Maintenance Workers’ Safety Manual published by the
Infrastructure Health and Safety Association. The Manual is 130 pages in length which is indicative of
the comprehensiveness of the safety training required. In addition, most Electricians also receive
training in a range of other safety risks such as fall arrest or working in confined spaces.
Younger workers ‐ and most apprentices fall into this category ‐ are often tempted to cut corners on
health and safety practices, especially if safety requirements slow down completion of a task. Indeed,
the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association advises that “new and young workers in Ontario are
four times more likely to be injured during the first month of employment than at any other time”.1 It
is important, therefore, that the workplace be composed predominantly of experienced journeypersons
who have been trained in the culture of safety consciousness and who can both supervise young
workers and reinforce the safety culture. The current ratio achieves this goal. Reducing the
journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio will increase the likelihood of risky behaviour.
1 http://www.ihsa.ca/new_experienced_workers/new_young_workers.cfm
8
Figure No. 3 shows the WSIB contribution rates for 2013. These contribution rates (per $100 or payroll)
are a proxy for health and safety performance.
Figure No. 3 WSIB Contribution Rates for 2013 - Construction Industry Rate Groups
Rate Group Premium per $100 of Payroll
704 Electrical And Incidental Construction Services $3.69◄
707 Mechanical And Sheet Metal Work $4.16
830 Power And Telecommunication Lines $4.45
723 Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Construction $4.55
711 Roadbuilding And Excavating $5.29
737 Millwrighting And Welding $6.90
732 Heavy Civil Construction $7.03
719 Inside Finishing $7.51
764 Homebuilding $9.10
751 Siding And Outside Finishing $10.25
741 Masonry $12.70
728 Roofing $14.80
748 Form Work And Demolition $18.31
As can be seen from the above table, the Electrical rate group has the lowest contribution rate in the
construction industry. This reflects the strong safety consciousness culture in the industry. One of the
foundations of that safety consciousness culture is a work place that is predominantly composed of
journeypersons who have been trained in the importance of safety and who can instil that culture in
younger workers. It would be a serious error for the Review Panel to radically reduce the
journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio and thereby risk a dilution of the safety culture in the industry. The
recommendation of the ECAO and the IBEW is a responsible recommendation that prudently balances
the needs of the industry without putting the industry’s health and safety performance at risk.
Some may argue that the industry’s safety performance is unrelated to the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice
ratio and that this ratio could be radically reduced without jeopardizing health and safety performance.
9
We acknowledge that there is no clear‐cut empirical evidence on the relationship between health and
safety performance and the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio. WSIB claims data are often not readily
available at the occupational level and certainly not at a level that distinguishes between
journeypersons and apprentices. There may be merit in undertaking such research, but at this time, we
must acknowledge that clear‐cut data are not available. How then should the Review Panel approach
the ratio question in then context of health and safety performance? We respectfully suggest that
where safety is at issue, the Review Panel should proceed with great caution. In the absence of clear‐
cut and persuasive evidence that the ratio of journeypersons‐to‐apprentices could be radically reduced
without increasing the risk to health and safety performance, the Review Panel should either leave the
current ratio as it stands or favour only moderate changes to the ratio.
There is no direct evidence available on the relationship between ratios and health and safety
performance. The only indirect evidence that can be marshalled is workers’ compensation rates in
different jurisdictions which may be lower than those in Ontario and which may coincide with lower
journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratios. This type of evidence, however, is far too weak to support the
strong conclusions that some proponents would ask you to draw. In the first place, the technical
definitions of rate groups are often not commensurate across jurisdictions. Second, many factors
influence a premium level, including (especially in Ontario) the magnitude of the unfunded liability , the
actuarial assumptions used to estimate future benefits costs, and the benefit structure itself. And third,
premium rates are based on claims experience, not on actual injuries. Especially in inter‐jurisdictional
comparisons, reported claims do not bear a reliable relationship to actual injuries, since a great many
injuries are unreported.2 For all of these reasons, the Review Panel should attach little, if any weight, to
2 In a national survey commissioned for the Canadian Policy Research Network and conducted by Ekos Research, it was found that 40% of persons in the work force covered by workers’ compensation experienced lost‐time injuries that they had not reported to the workers’ compensation authority in their province. Harry Shannon and
10
inter‐jurisdictional comparisons of workers’ compensation rates. Certainly such comparisons should not
be relied on to make radical changes in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio that could weaken health
and safety performance in a trade which is intrinsically dangerous.
We conclude, therefore, that the current ratio is consistent with health and safety goals and that only a
moderate reduction in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio can be justified without putting at risk the
strong safety culture that currently operates in the electrical industry. Based on Criterion Three, the
current ratio should continue without alteration or be altered in the moderate way recommended by
the ECAO and the IBEW. Certainly, based on Criterion Three, radical changes in the ratio rule should be
rejected.
Criterion 4: The effect, if any, of the journeyperson to apprentice ratio of the trade on the environment.
There are no strong connections between the ratio in the Electrician trade and the environment. The
emergence of alternative energy sources has altered the skill requirements for Electricians, but has not
altered the overall demand trajectory of the trade. No arguments for altering the current ratio can be
founded on Criterion Four.
Criterion 5: The economic impact of the journeyperson to apprentice ratio of the trade on apprentices, journeypersons, employers and employer associations and, where applicable, on trade unions, employee associations, apprentice training providers and the public.
The relevant factors to consider under this criterion are:
Graham Lowe, “How Many Injured Workers do not file Claims for Workers’ American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 42, pp 467‐473 (2002)
11
1) the current effective ratio of journeypersons‐to‐apprentices,
2) current and expected labour market conditions for electricians.
3) the employment response to a reduction in the journeypersons‐to‐apprentices.
Current Effective Ratio:
Figure No. 4 shows the current number of active journeypersons and apprentices in both branches of
the Electrician trade.
Figure No. 4 Implied Journeyperson-to-Apprentice Ratio
College of Trades (as of October 1, 2012)
Active
Journeypersons Active
Apprentices Implied Ratio
Construction and Maintenance Electrician 39,586 10,143 3.90:1
Domestic and Rural Electrician 854 139 6.14:1
Total 40,440 10,282 3.93:1
As can be seen from Figure No. 4, the current effective ratio, on a provincial basis, is 3.9:1 for the
Construction and Maintenance Electrician.
For the Domestic and Rural Electrician, the current effective ratio is more than 6:1.
Clearly, the current ratio is not a constraint on the capacity of the electrical industry to increase the
number of apprentices in the industry. To some degree this reflects larger contractors who tend to
employ fewer apprentices than are permitted because their clients sometimes specify that they want
only journeypersons on the job site. Therefore, notwithstanding an overall ratio of 3.9:1, some smaller
contractors may have the capacity to moderately increase their employment of apprentices. These data
support a moderate change in the apprentice ratio. They provide no support for a radical change.
12
Current and Expected Labour Market Conditions:
The most objective source of supply and demand information is the Construction Looking Forward
forecast model supported by the Construction Sector Council. The Construction Sector Council is a
stakeholder organization. Its forecasting model has been described by the Conference Board and the
Centre for the Study of Living Standards as an example of a ‘best practice’ in human resources planning.3
The CSC forecasting model estimates overall demand, based on two factors. The first is ‘economic
demand’ which is measured by projected employment requirements. Economic demand is estimated
based on an econometric forecasting model for construction activity and an inventory of major
construction projects. The second demand‐side factor is ‘replacement demand’ which is determined by
mortality and retirement trends. On the supply side, the CSC model estimates supply trends based on
(1) an analysis of historic labour force trends, (2) apprenticeship registrations, (3) immigration, (4) inter‐
provincial migration, and (5) the movement of labour into (or out of) construction from other industries.
The comparison of demand and supply trends then leads to a ranking of expected labour market
conditions. The ranking uses a 1‐5 scale, where 1 represents significant excess supply and 5 represents
significant excess demand. A ranking of 3 is a balanced labour market. The rankings are reviewed and
validated by industry committees. In other words, these rankings reflect both independent and expert
economic analysis and also the view of industry. The CSC model is in public domain and can be
consulted at: www.constructionforecasts.ca/forecast/search.
3 Conference Board of Canada (2005), “The Labour Market Information (LMI) Program: Acting on Human Resource Information to Build and Maintain Capacity in the Canadian Construction Industry”
Conference Board of Canada (2007) “Construction Looking Forward: An Analysis of the Use, Value and Impact of the Construction Sector Council’s Labour Market Information (LMI) Forecasting Tool”
Centre for the Study of Living Standards (2010), “The State of Knowledge on the Role and Impact of Labour Market Information: A Survey of the Canadian Experience”
13
Figurer No. 5 summarizes the current ranking projections for electricians Ontario. This forecast includes
industrial electricians and power systems electricians:
Figure No. 5 Labour Market Rankings: Electrician
Construction Sector Council (Screen Capture: January 24, 2012)
As can be seen from Figure No. 5, the CSC forecast is for a moderate excess of demand over supply in
2013, followed by a balanced labour market thereafter. This forecast provides no support for a radical
reduction in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio. The economic outlook should lead the panel either
to leave the current ratio unchanged or to make the moderate changes proposed by the ECAO and the
IBEW‐CCO.
Labour Market Response to Ratio Changes
The Review Panel should be cautious in adjusting ratios. There are two possible responses to a ratio
reduction. The first is a ‘substitution effect’, that is to say replacing journeypersons with apprentices.
The second is ‘hiring effect’, which is increasing employment of apprentices. The nature of the
substitution effect is clear from the chart in Figure No. 1. Under the proposed change, some employers
would be allowed to replace journeypersons with apprentices, if they wished to do so. On the other
hand, the proposed changes would also allow some employers to increase the number of apprentices
they employ without laying off journeypersons. In a weak labour market, the risk is that the substitution
effect would predominate since it enables employers to reduce their average crew cost. When demand
14
conditions are stronger, the hiring effect will predominate. It is our reading of the economic outlook
that that a moderate adjustment in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio could be accommodated, but
not a radical reduction in the ratio. To accommodate a radical reduction in the ratio, Ontario would
need to see construction growth on the par with Alberta. We are aware of no responsible forecast
which anticipates more than moderate growth for the Ontario construction industry. Indeed, the risk to
this growth outlook is on the downside, not the upside.
Risks and Benefits
The Review Panel should also be cognizant of the risks that are inherent in reducing the ratio. Reducing
the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio potentially increases the number and proportion of less skilled
workers on the job. There are four types of risk that will be increased:
(1) the risk of lower productivity,
(2) the risk to installation quality,
(3) the increased risk to health and safety performance, and
(4) the risk of reduced quality of on‐the‐job training (Note that 90% of an
apprentice’s training time is on‐the‐job training.)
There is, however, an asymmetry between who gains the economic benefit from reducing the
journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio and who bears the costs associated with these increased risks.
Contractors who take advantage of lower ratios are able to reduce their crew costs. This may allow
them to increase their profit margin. However, the majority of the risks will be borne by the owners of
buildings (through increased risk to installation quality and productivity), workers (through increased
risk to safety performance), apprentices (through increased risk to training quality), the building
inspection system (through increased risk to installation quality), the workers’ compensation system
15
(through increased risk to safety performance) and the industry (through potentially higher WSIB rates
owing to increased accident rates), etc. The economic benefits of reducing the journeyperson‐to‐
apprentice ratio flow in one direction. However, the economic costs associated with increased risk flow
in another direction. When there is such a pronounced asymmetry between the distribution of benefits
and the distribution of risks, the Review Panel should proceed with caution. Radical proposals should be
rejected.
Based on Criterion 5, we conclude that a moderate reduction in the ratio is sustainable, as proposed by
the ECAO and the IBEW. However, a radical reduction in the ratio would fly in the face of current data
on the implied journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio and the CSC’s objective forecast which anticipates
moderate growth in the construction industry and a balanced labour market from 2014 onwards.
Criterion 6: The number of apprentices and journeypersons working in the trade.
Data on the number of apprentices and journeypersons working in the trade were set out in Figure No. 2
which is reproduced below as Figure No. 6.
Figure No. 6 Implied Journeyperson-to-Apprentice Ratio
College of Trades (as of October 1, 2012)
Active
Journeypersons Active
Apprentices Implied Ratio
Construction and Maintenance Electrician 39,586 10,143 3.90:1
Domestic and Rural Electrician 854 139 6.14:1
Total 40,440 10,282 3.93:1
16
As noted previously, the current effective ratio (3.9:1) is in excess of the permitted ratio which is 3:1
above 8 journeypersons and less below that threshold. Criterion Number Six does not support a radical
reduction in the current ratio.
Criterion 7: The rates of completion for apprentices in an apprentice training program for the trade
The only valid way to measure completion rates is through a longitudinal study that tracks cohorts over
time. No such study has been undertaken, although the Ontario Construction Secretariat has
commenced such a study. In the absence of a longitudinal study, the only procedure that can be used is
to compare new registrations with completions. This comparison should not be used to compute a
completion rate as the time taken to complete training varies over the construction cycle and is also
affected by the quality of new registrations in the trade. Figure No. 7, which does not attempt to
estimate completion rates, shows the number of new registrations per year compared to the number of
completions. (As indicated, some data were suppressed owing to small numbers.)
Figure No. 7
Electricians: New Registrations and Completions (MTCU data provided to Ontario Construction Secretariat)
C&M Electricians D&R Electricians
Year New Registrations
Completions Ratio of Completions
to New
Registrations
New Registrations
Completions Ratio of Completions
to New
Registrations
2004-05 1,675 837 50.0% 18 suppressed --
2005-06 1,768 995 56.3% 33 13 39.4%
2006-07 2,147 1,089 50.7% 26 suppressed --
2007-08 2,056 1,015 49.4% 33 suppressed
2008-09 2,107 1,067 50.6% 46 suppressed --
2009-10 1,861 1,172 63.0% 24 suppressed
2010-11 2,118 1,125 53.1% 25 suppressed --
2011-12 2,069 1,279 61.8% 29 10 34.5%
Average 1,975 1,072 54.3% 234 -- --
17
Completions in any given year range from about 49%‐63% of new registrations. The eight‐year average
is 54% for the Construction and Maintenance Electrician. It cannot be computed for the Domestic and
Rural Electrician. One would expect completions to be somewhat closer to the new registration
number. The completion ratio will almost never be 100% of new registration since there will always be
some dropouts. Also, in a growing trade one would expect new registrations to increase somewhat
faster than completions. However, the 54% rate is troubling. It suggests that there is significant room
to improve the completion rate. In these circumstances, one should proceed cautiously when altering
the ratio. There is nothing in the completion rate data which suggests that a sharp influx in the number
of apprentices would be appropriate. A moderate and cautious approach is called for.
Based on Criterion Seven, we conclude that the current journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio should be
altered no more than the moderate change proposed by the ECAO and the IBEW.
Criterion 8: The journeyperson to apprentice ratio, if any, for a similar trade in other jurisdictions.
The following table summarizes ratio rules that we believe to be current.
18
Figure No. 8 Journeypesons-to-Apprentices Ratios
Red Seal Secretariat Ellis Chart
C&M Electrician
British Columbia N/A
Alberta 1:2
Saskatchewan 1:2
Manitoba 1:1
Ontario 1:1 to 3:1
Quebec* 2:1
New Brunswick 1:1
Nova Scotia 1:1
PEI 1:1 to 3:1
Newfoundland & Labrador 1:2
*Quebec regulates ratios by sector. The ratio is 2:1 in all sectors except residential where it is 1:1.
We do not regard ratios in other jurisdictions as especially germane to Ontario policy. Labour market
conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are clearly different from those in Ontario. Atlantic Canada
views its apprenticeship system as a means of training workers who can supply requirements in other
provinces (notably western Canada) so as to generate remittance transfers back to Atlantic Canada.
Criterion 9: The supply of, and demand for, journeypersons in the trade and in the labour market generally.
We have also described the Construction Sector Council forecast for electricians. For convenience we
reproduce Figure No. 5 as Figure No. 9 and reiterate that the forecast is for a balanced labour market
19
from 2014 onwards. This forecast was predicated on a continuation of the prevailing intake patterns
into the Electrician trade.
Figure No. 9 Labour Market Rankings: Electrician
Construction Sector Council (Screen Capture: January 24, 2012)
The import of the CSC forecast is that reducing the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio in a way that
induces a sharp influx in the number of apprentices will unbalance the labour market. Either
apprentices will displace journeypersons and unemployment will increase among journeypersons or the
system will simply not be able to retain the apprentices it drew in. Completion rates will decline as a
result and both training time and training resources will have been wasted. It makes no sense to draw in
apprentices whose number exceeds the long‐term demand for journeyperson.
In planning for long‐run needs, it is also important to take productivity trends into account.
Construction productivity has been increasing as a result of both increased mechanization of installation
procedures and much greater use of pre‐fabricated components. Consequently the amount of on‐site
employment hours per million dollars of electrical construction has been declining. In other words, even
if the Electrician work force did not increase, as a result of these productivity trends, that work force
would be able to complete more electrical construction work.4 Productivity trends offset part of the
increased demand for skilled journeypersons. The impact of these productivity trends weighs against a
radical reduction in the journeyperson‐to‐apprentice ratio.
4 See, for example, Gregg Schoppman, “Electrical Contractor Efficiency and Productivity Trends”, Electrical
Construction and Maintenance, September 19, 2012.
20
Based on Criterion Nine, the current ratio should not be radically reduced. The most that can be
supported by the economy is the moderate change in the ratio recommended by the ECAO and the
IBEW.
Criterion 10: The attraction and retention of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade.
It was reported in the discussion of Criterion Seven that, between 2004‐05 and 2011‐12, completions
were equal to around 54% of new registrations. The implication is that there is a higher than
appropriate drop‐out rate among apprentices although the data do not permit an accurate drop‐out
rate to be computed. The inference was that the industry needs to direct more attention to improving
the completion rate of apprentices. That being said, the supply/demand forecasts of the Construction
Sector Council took the retention rate (which is the opposite of the drop‐out rate) into account when
projecting balanced labour market conditions form 2014 forward..
MTCU data indicate that at October 1, 2012 there were 24,059 expired C of Q holders. The average age
of an apprentice was 28, so one might surmise that the approximate working career of a C of Q holder is
around 35 years (age 30 to age 65). On this basis, it seems that the trade may lose around 687 C of Q
holders per year (24,058/35). This is roughly the same as the attrition rate estimated by the
Construction Sector Council, as will be discussed under Criterion Ten below. As noted in Figure No. 7
on page 16, the number of new registrations average 1,975 and has been higher in recent years. The
number completions has averaged 1,072 and has also been higher in recent years. Thus both new
registrations and completions have exceed the estimated drop‐out rate from the trade.
21
Based on Criterion Ten, there is no justification for a radical reduction in the current ratios to address
the problems of dropping out from the trade.
Criterion 11: The average age of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade and the projected attrition of journeypersons working in the trade.
The Construction Sector Council forecast projects mortality and retirements for the construction
industry. Figure No. 10 summarizes the projections for Electricians in Ontario:
Figure No. 10 Electricians - Projected Mortality, Retirements and New Entrants
Construction Sector Council
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mortality 73 75 76 75 75 76 77 77
Retirements 531 551 558 565 571 584 601 610
Total 604 626 634 640 646 660 678 687
Over the period 2013 to 2020, replacement demand (i.e., the sum of mortality plus retirements) will
average 647. Figure No. 7, (page 16) showed that the average number of apprenticeship completions
was 1,072 and has also been higher in recent years. Clearly completions are more than sufficient to
meet replacement demand.
Based on Criterion Eleven, the current ratio should not be radically reduced. Current and projected
attrition rates are consistent with, at most, a moderate change in the ratio affecting small and medium‐
size electrical contractors.
22
Conclusion
Taking all of the criteria into account the Review Panel should adopt the recommended ratio changes
proposed by the ECAO and the IBEW‐CCO. These changes will enable small and medium‐size
contractors to increase their employment of apprentices. The changes will also allow more apprentices
to be hired in the Domestic and Rural Electrician branch of the trade. At the same time, the changes
proposed by the ECAO and the IBEW‐CCO will not destabilize the labour market with an influx of
apprentices who subsequently will not find the jobs they need to complete their training or to work as
journeypersons in their chosen occupation. The Review Panel should exercise caution and prudence in
making changes to the ratio. Having regard for all of the mandated criteria this should support the
changes recommended by the ECAO and the IBEW‐CCO.
Respectfully submitted
Eryl Roberts
Executive Vice‐President, Labour Relations
Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario
John Grimshaw
Executive Secretary‐Treasurer
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Construction Council of Ontario