Multi Outcome Construction Policy (final report)

Head ContractorsFrom the interviews conducted, it appears that the incentive structure in the BuildingSkills Policy did not align the behaviour of the head contractors and subcontractorswith the policy objectives. One of the head contractors interviewed noted that therequirements in the Building Skills Policy did not create incentives for contractors totake on additional apprentices and/or trainees. He gave an example of a headcontractor that had a number of private construction projects and a governmentproject, and had two apprentices. It was noted the head contractor could simply movethe apprentices off the private construction projects and on to the governmentconstruction project in order to meet the requirements of the Building Skills Policy.The contractor asserted that the policy was simply a number counting exercise thatdid not actually change the outcome.“You get a hospital say, and you’ve got a component for the mechanicalcontractor, whose got to provide so many training hours, and he’s got a DHWcontract with us, and he’s got 15 others with a resource company, and he’sgot two apprentices, he shoots those two apprentices over here, and meets allhis requirements. He hasn’t actually gone forward. You know, so that’s wherethe whole system flounders.”SubcontractorsIt appears that the Building Skills Policy had no impact on the training behaviour ofthe subcontractors we interviewed. One subcontractor noted that the policy had notdiscouraged the company from training apprentices, but also noted that it had notencouraged the company to employ apprentices. He also commented that thecompany would not employ apprentices simply in order to get a governmentconstruction contract.“It wouldn’t encourage me to employ apprentices. We employ apprenticesbecause we employ apprentices. I’m not going to employ an apprentice justbecause I want to get a government job.”72