Bill 28 good news for special interests, but a raw deal for Manitoba workers

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/10/2018 (2564 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

We can all accept the principle that Manitoba’s public construction projects should benefit Manitobans. They should create jobs, prioritize safety and be built by properly trained workers so residents can rely on infrastructure that’s built to last.

But if Brian Pallister’s government and its support base of special-interest groups agree on this principle, their introduction of Bill 28 raises questions. Why are they attacking Manitoba’s skilled workers? Why are they seeking to drive down costs for out-of-province construction companies by cutting corners on labour? And why have they introduced this legislation without meaningful consultation?

To fully understand this debate, it’s important to explore the history of project-labour agreements (PLAs) and the role they have played in Manitoba.

In the 1960s, Progressive Conservative Premier Duff Roblin introduced PLAs to change the tendering equation from cost only to “cost plus quality” selection — creating more jobs for Manitobans.

He did this because he understood that cheap labour is not skilled labour and skilled labour is not cheap. With this understanding, successive governments, along with private-sector project owners across North America, have used PLAs to deliver high-quality construction.

For many years, we have seen a concerted effort from non-unionized contractors such as the Merit Contractors Association and the Progressive Contractors Association (PCA) to chip away at the hiring requirements and quality controls created by PLAs.

In 2012, Merit launched a lawsuit naming local unions and Manitoba Hydro as defendants. Merit imported expensive lawyers from British Columbia to argue that PLAs were “forced unionization” and violated charter rights of five workers it had named as plaintiffs. Despite its stated concern for charter rights, Merit’s financial interest in this legal venture was evident.

Manitoba courts rejected Merit’s case and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear its appeal. Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, using suspiciously Merit-like language, Pallister called PLAs “forced unionization” and promised to ban them if elected.

This marked the first sign of Brian Pallister turning his back on former premier Roblin’s legacy, and ultimately, Manitoba’s skilled workers. It was the first sign that forewarned of Bill 28.

Given this history of Bill 28, it’s important to explore what it means. Quite simply, it’s a raw deal for Manitoba workers. Since 2014, 56 per cent of the workforce at the Keeyask PLA project has come from Manitoba. With no owner-led PLA at the Point Dubois hydro project, only 34 per cent of work went to Manitobans. The contrast speaks for itself, as does the loss of hundreds of millions in wages that have been sent out of Manitoba.

What about the notion of forced unionization? Quite the contrary. PLAs are devised to ensure that all workers, union and non-union, are paid equally and dues are levied in exchange for better wages and benefits. PLAs have never required that bidders be union or that work only go to union contractors. Non-union contractors are never required to sign union agreements.

These dues levied also pay for training and workforce development provided by the union sector. Manitoba unions spent over $6.5 million on training in 2017 alone. Merit and PCA, the driving forces behind this bill, have no training centres in Manitoba.

Still not convinced? More than 77 per cent of contractors at the Floodway and Keeyask projects have been non-union contractors.

PLAs create local employment opportunities for Manitobans, including Indigenous workers and women. Under PLAs, thousands of Indigenous Manitobans have worked millions of hours.

With Bill 28, private interest is masquerading as public interest. Private companies understandably want to make more money. But when they demand special legislation so they can earn more by paying workers less, we are turning our back on the working middle class while compromising the safety of our construction sites and the quality of our infrastructure projects.

Bill 28 will inflict irreversible damages on our skilled trades workers and communities, all for an ideologically driven commitment to special interest groups such as Merit and PCA. Put simply, Bill 28 is not worth the risk. Stop Bill 28.

Sudhir Sandhu is chief executive officer of Manitoba Building Trades, which represents 8,000 skilled trades workers in Manitoba.