TAUC Union Labor Supply Study INTRODUCTION · 2020. 5. 5. · TAUC Union Labor Supply Study 2...

TAUC: 2020 Union Labor Supply Study

2

INTRODUCTIONThe 2020 TAUC Union Craft Labor Supply Study marks the sixth year that The Association of Union Constructors (TAUC) has commissioned the Construction Labor Research Council (CLRC) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the union construction and maintenance industry. The first study was completed in 2015. Copies of the previous year’s report can be obtained by visiting the TAUC website: www.tauc.org/laborsupply

THE ASSOCIATION OF UNION CONSTRUCTORS (TAUC)The Association of Union Constructors (TAUC) is the premier national trade association for the union construction and maintenance industry. Membership is comprised of contractors who utilize union labor for their projects, as well as local contractor associations and vendors in the construction and maintenance industry. TAUC’s mission is to act as an advocate for union contractors and to enhance cooperation between the three entities involved in the successful completion of construction and maintenance projects: the union, the contractor, and the Owner/Client (the company for which the work is being completed). TAUC’s ultimate goal: to demonstrate that union construction and maintenance is the best option because it’s safer, more productive and provides a higher quality, cost-competitive product.

The Association of Union Constructors

1501 Lee Highway, Suite 202Arlington, VA 22209Phone: 703.524.3336Fax: 703.524.3364www.tauc.org

CONSTRUCTION LABOR RESEARCH COUNCIL (CLRC)The Construction Labor Research Council (CLRC) is the nation’s foremost source of labor cost and related information for the unionized sector of the construction industry. It serves as a key resource for data on labor costs, workforce issues, market share, labor contract terms, safety and associated topics. The CLRC database contains wages, fringe benefits and contract language information on nearly 3,000 contracts in 285 cities for 17 crafts. CLRC is supported by management associations whose member firms employ union construction craft workers.

Construction Labor Research Council

1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 700Washington, D.C. 20036Phone: 202.347.8440www.clrcconsulting.org


3

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY & KEY FINDINGS .................................................... 4

STUDY RESULTS .............................................................................................. 9I. Study Demographics ..........................................................................................................................9

A. Role ...........................................................................................................................................9B. Industry .................................................................................................................................... 10C. Region ......................................................................................................................................11D. Organization Size ..................................................................................................................... 12

II. Growth and Contraction in the Construction and Maintenance Industry ..............13Part 1. Overall Growth/Contraction in the Construction and Maintenance Industry ........................ 13Part 2. Growth/Contraction by Demographic Data Cut .................................................................. 15

III. Union Craft Labor Shortage and Surplus .............................................................................27Part 1. Overall Union Craft Labor Shortage/Surplus .......................................................................27Part 2. Union Craft Labor Shortage/Surplus by Demographic Data Cut .........................................29

IV. Union Craft Labor Shortage and Surplus—Craft Comparison ................................... 38Part 1. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019 ........................................................................................39Part 2. Projected Shortage/Surplus in 2020 .................................................................................. 41Part 3. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019 for Apprentices ...............................................................43Part 4. Difficult to Find, High Demand Skills ..................................................................................46

V. Per Diem Payments and Prevalence ........................................................................................47Part 1: Percentage of Organizations Paying Per Diems ..................................................................47Part 2: Per Diem Amount ..............................................................................................................49Part 3: Percentage of Projects with Per Diems .............................................................................52

DETAILED INDIVIDUAL CRAFT RESULTS ............................................................................................. 55

I. Boilermakers ....................................................................................................................................... 56

II. Bricklayers & Allied Crafts ........................................................................................................... 59

III. Carpenters & Millwrights ............................................................................................................62

IV. Electricians ........................................................................................................................................ 65

V. Heat & Frost Insulators .................................................................................................................. 68

VI. Iron Workers .......................................................................................................................................71

VII. Laborers ..............................................................................................................................................74

VIII. Operating Engineers ....................................................................................................................77

IX. Painters & Allied Trades .............................................................................................................80

X. Plasterers & Cement Masons ..................................................................................................... 83

XI. Plumbers, Pipefitters & Steamfitters ..................................................................................... 86

XII. Roofers & Waterproofers ........................................................................................................... 89

XIII. Sheet Metal Workers .................................................................................................................. 92

XIV. Teamsters ........................................................................................................................................ 95


4

Coronavirus NoticeThe data for this study were collected from January 13 – February 14, 2020. This was well before the coronavirus crisis was evident. The results of this study are still useful to document the status of the union craft workforce before the crisis. In particular, findings regarding 2019 are unaffected by the crisis and remain valid. Projections regarding the future will be useful as a point of comparison for future replications of this labor study. Thus, in spite of the coronavirus crisis, this study has continued value. However, users are cautioned to be prudent in their interpretation and use of the results.

The 2020 Union Craft Labor Supply Study was conducted by the Construction Labor Research Council (CLRC) and sponsored by The Association of Union Constructors (TAUC). This important annual research project provides a useful, detailed and data-driven picture of the state of the union craft workforce in construction and maintenance activity throughout the United States. Analyses focus on current status, growth projections, labor shortages and surpluses, craft-specific results, per diems (new for 2020) and much more.

TAUC, CLRC and their partners know that a data-based approach is the best way to achieve shared goals of improving business performance and increasing union market share.

STUDY FOCUSThis study covers the following topics:• Growth in the construction and maintenance

industry (union and nonunion)• Labor supply for union craft workers covering:

- Recent history - Projections for 2020 and beyond - Apprentice levels

• Detailed findings for 14 different union crafts

• Per diem payments (New for 2020)• Skills shortage

KEY FEATURES OF THE STUDYA number of features make this study a trusted and useful resource for professionals interested in the construction and maintenance industry.

• Respondents were instructed to report information based on their own organization, not their perceptions of an overall generic labor market, hearsay or what they may have read in some publication. This type of data collection enhances the validity of the results and minimizes erroneous data which often clutter the findings of studies.

• The population from which the large sample (N=804) was drawn is knowledgeable and engaged regarding the topic of craft labor supply.

• A large amount of craft-specific results is included in the report.

• Detailed analyses, including data cuts by the four demographic variables (i.e., role, industry, region, organization size) and interactions among those variables, are presented throughout the report.

• Many charts and tables, along with helpful explanatory text, are included to ensure that the study results can be efficiently and accurately understood by the reader.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in the tables for the following categories:• Organization Role • Industry• Geographic Region• Organization Size (Number of Employees)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & KEY FINDINGS


5

KEY FINDINGS1. Growth Projections have Plateaued, Yet Remain StrongProjections regarding growth in the construction and maintenance industry remain strong, with about 75% of the study respondents anticipating some degree of growth in their organization for 2020. Moreover, approximately one fourth project “very strong growth.” The results this year also suggest that growth projections have plateaued. With such strong growth forecasts, this is not unexpected since economic projections beyond a certain saturation point are difficult to achieve.

The growth projections were examined according to various data cuts:

• Role: Consistent with previous years, Union/Labor Representatives provided the highest while Owner/Clients provided the lowest ratings regarding projected growth.

• Industry: The Commercial/Institutional industry supplanted the Civil industry as the one with the most favorable growth prospects for 2020. In fact, 88% projected growth in Commercial/Institutional work for 2020, up from an already strong 81% in 2019. The weakest ratings were for the Utility industry.

• Region: The South Central and Northwest regions saw substantial increases in the percent of study participants projecting growth in 2020. The Southwest region had the least optimistic results.

• Organization Size: Growth ratings from those in the largest organizations (10,000+ employees) grew significantly, from 65% projecting growth in 2019 to a very strong majority of 85% in 2020.

2. The Union Craft Worker Shortage is Small but Pervasive, has DeclinedAlthough the shortage of union craft workers continues, the percent of respondents reporting a shortage fell modestly in 2019. And conversely, the percentage reporting the appropriate number of craft workers, or a surplus, in their organization increased. Projections for 2020 were quite consistent with reports of actual workforce characteristics for 2019.

Based on the data gathered for this study since 2015,

the union craft worker shortage can best be described as a small but pervasive shortage—around 50% of the participants typically report a “small shortage” in their organization. Bracketing the small shortage results each year, approximately 15-18% report a large shortage, 25-27% report having the right number of workers and 6-7% a surplus.

Results by data cut:

• Role: Fewer study participants from unions reported a labor shortage than those in management roles, commensurate with findings from previous years.

• Industry: The lowest (most favorable) worker shortage data were for the Commercial/Institutional industry. This jibes favorably with the growth data in this report where the strongest sector was Commercial/Institutional. Manufacturing saw an increase in shortage concerns while Utility saw a decrease.

• Region: The South Central region saw a large jump in percent of respondents indicating a shortage. Overall, shortages were most pervasive in the South Central, Mountain Northern Plains and Northwest regions.

• Organization Size: From 2018 to 2019, labor shortages increased in smaller organizations (500 and fewer employees) and decreased in larger ones.

3. Differing Perspectives: Management vs LaborLabor had more optimistic perspectives than management (Contractor/Subcontractor, Construction Manager and Owner/Clients). That is, they had noticeably stronger ratings about growth prospects for 2020, and many fewer members reported a union craft worker shortage in 2019. This pattern is consistent with findings from previous years of this study.

A new topic for this year’s labor study, per diem payments, further exemplifies the unique perspectives of labor and management. According to labor, 32% of union craft workers received per diem payments, and the payments averaged $73.00 per day. Each of the management categories said that at least 67% (over twice the percent reported by labor) received per diem payments, and the management average amounts ranged from $90.54 - $104.55, or $17.54 - $31.55 more than the union average.


6

4. Craft Specific Shortages Regarding the union craft labor shortage, two crafts stood out in particular: Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians. Results show that the most pervasive, and greatest degree of, shortage ratings consistently fell with these two crafts for three key topics in this study: actual ratings about 2019, projections for 2020 and apprentices. The most lacking skill was once again welding.

New for 2020

5. Per Diems Per diem payments have long been a topic of interest in the construction community. Findings in this study answer some elusive, ubiquitous questions.

• Per diem payments were made by 48% of the organizations in 2019.

• For those organizations that paid per diems, 41% of the projects in those organizations had per diems.

• Together, the percent of organizations using per diems (48%) and the percent of projects in those organizations having per diems (41%) convey that approximately 20% of all projects have per diem payments (0.48 x 0.41 = 0.20).*

• The average per diem amount in 2019 was $84.50. *Actual result may vary depending on the variance in the number of projects per organization.

Further analyses show how per diems varied by the four demographic variables, as well as by the degree of labor shortage in an organization:

• Role: Management thought per diems were used more often and were larger than labor did.

• Industry: Per diems were most common, and larger, in the Civil, Manufacturing and Utility industries.

• Organization Size: There was little relationship between per diem usage (and the dollar amount of the per diem) with organization size. In other words, small organizations were about as likely to use per diem payments as larger ones, and the size of the payments was not correlated with number of employees in the organization.

• Region: Per diem payments tended to be more common in the New England, Southeast, South Central and Mountain Northern Plains regions. They were used the least in the East North Central region.

• Labor Shortage: As anticipated, usage of per diems was highly correlated with labor shortage; the greater the shortage in the organization, the more likely per diems were utilized. The amount of the per diem, however, was unrelated to degree of labor shortage.

Region States

New England Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Middle Atlantic District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

Southeast Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

East North Central Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia

West North Central Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Mountain Northern Plains Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Northwest Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington

Southwest Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada


7

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTSThe demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in the tables below for the following categories:

• Organization Role• Industry• Geographic Region• Organization Size (Number of Employees)

Organization Role

2019 2020

Number Percent Number Percent

Association Employee 30 4% 25 3%

Construction Manager 38 5% 37 5%

Contractor/Subcontractor 344 42% 266 33%

Owner/Client 49 6% 19 2%

Union/Labor Representative 319 40% 427 53%

Other 25 3% 30 4%

Total 805 100% 804 100%

2019 2020

Industry Number Percent Number Percent

Civil 31 4% 35 5%

Commercial/Institutional 310 43% 338 47%

Manufacturing 153 21% 117 16%

Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical 90 12% 93 13%

Utility 100 14% 96 13%

Other 42 6% 41 6%

Total 726 100% 720 100%*Total sums to fewer respondents than the sample size because some did not indicate industry.


8

2019 2020

Geographic Region Number Percent Number Percent

New England 135 11% 142 11%

Middle Atlantic 206 17% 204 16%

Southeast 180 15% 185 15%

East North Central 316 26% 347 28%

West North Central 86 7% 105 8%

South Central 81 7% 94 7%

Mountain Northern Plains 56 5% 57 5%

Northwest 56 5% 62 5%

Southwest 83 7% 69 5%

Total 1,199 100% 1,265 100%*Total sums to more than the sample size because respondents could provide data for more than one region.

2019 2020

Number of Employees Number Percent Number Percent

1-25 97 12% 67 8%

26-100 117 15% 85 11%

101-500 217 27% 216 26%

501-1,000 98 12% 125 16%

1,001-5,000 126 16% 135 17%

5,001-10,000 36 4% 37 5%

More than 10,000 114 14% 139 17%

Total 805 100% 804 100%


9

STUDY RESULTSOn January 13, 2020, a questionnaire focusing on the union craft labor supply in the construction and maintenance industry was circulated to individuals directly engaged in that industry. A total of 804 people responded (one fewer than last year), representing a variety of roles in their organizations, industries, geographic regions and organization sizes.

I. STUDY DEMOGRAPHICSA. RoleAs shown in Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2, in 2020 most respondents were either a Union/Labor Representative (53%) or a Contractor/Subcontractor (33%). The remaining roles represented 14% of the study sample. The proportion of the sample representing labor was noticeably larger in 2020 than in 2019 (i.e., 2019: 40%. 2020: 53%). Conversely, the size of the total management cohort (Association Employee, Construction Manager, Contractor/Subcontractor and Owner/Client) of the sample decreased from 57% in 2019 to 43% in 2020.

Exhibit 1.1

RESPONDENT ROLE TABLE

Organization Role

2019 2020

Number Percent Number Percent

Association Employee 30 4% 25 3%

Construction Manager 38 5% 37 5%

Contractor/Subcontractor 344 42% 266 33%

Owner/Client 49 6% 19 2%

Union/Labor Representative 319 40% 427 53%

Other 25 3% 30 4%

Total 805 100% 804 100%

Exhibit 1.2

RESPONDENT ROLE CHARTS

5%

4%

3%

201942%

6%

40%

Other

Contractor/ Subcontractor

Union/Labor Representative

Owner/Client

Association Employee

Construction Manager

5%

3%

4%

202033%

2%

53%

Other

Contractor/ Subcontractor

Union/Labor Representative

Owner/Client

Association Employee



10

B. IndustryStudy participants were asked to indicate the industry in which their organization performed the most union construction and maintenance work. The Commercial/Institutional industry sector was again the most common one in 2020, representing 47% of the sample (43% in 2019), as displayed in Exhibits 1.3 and 1.4. Manufacturing, Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical and Utility were represented by 13% to 16% of the respondents in 2020. The final industry sector, Civil, represented 5% of the data in 2020.

Exhibit 1.3

INDUSTRY TABLE

2019 2020

Industry Number Percent Number Percent

Civil 31 4% 35 5%

Commercial/Institutional 310 43% 338 47%

Manufacturing 153 21% 117 16%

Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical 90 12% 93 13%

Utility 100 14% 96 13%

Other 42 6% 41 6%

Total 726 100% 720 100%*Total sums to fewer respondents than the sample size because some did not indicate industry.

Exhibit 1.4

INDUSTRY CHARTSExhibit 2

4%6%

201943%

21%

12%

14%

Other

Commercial/Institutional

Petroleum/Natural Gas/

Chemical

Utility

Manufacturing

Civil

5%6%

202047%

16%

13%

13%

Other

Commercial/Institutional


Chemical

Utility

Manufacturing

Civil


11

C. RegionRespondents were instructed to indicate the region(s) for which they were most familiar with their organization’s union construction and maintenance work activity. In order to ensure reliable data from knowledgeable participants, respondents were instructed to provide data only for those regions they were familiar with and where their organization had performed work.

The East North Central region had the plurality of responses both in 2019 and 2020 at 26% and 28%, respectively, as illustrated in Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6. Other regions with a double digit percent of the responses in 2020 are the Middle Atlantic (16%), Southeast (15%) and New England (11%).

Exhibit 1.5

REGION TABLE

2019 2020

Geographic Region Number Percent Number Percent

New England 135 11% 142 11%

Middle Atlantic 206 17% 204 16%

Southeast 180 15% 185 15%

East North Central 316 26% 347 28%

West North Central 86 7% 105 8%

South Central 81 7% 94 7%

Mountain Northern Plains 56 5% 57 5%

Northwest 56 5% 62 5%

Southwest 83 7% 69 5%

Total 1,199 100% 1,265 100%*Total sums to more than the sample size because respondents could provide data for more than one region.

Exhibit 1.6

REGION CHARTSExhibit 3

11%

5%

7%

5%

201917%

15%

26%

7%

7%

Northwest

South Central

Mountain Northern Plains

Southeast

Middle Atlantic

West North

Central

East North Central

New England

Southwest

11%5%5%

5%

202016%

15%

28%

8%

7%

Northwest

South Central

Mountain Northern Plains

Southeast

Middle Atlantic

West North

Central

East North Central

New England

Southwest

Southeast

Middle Atlantic


12

D. Organization SizeExhibits 1.7 and 1.8 show that the participants in the study were fairly evenly distributed across various sizes of organizations. The most common size was 101-500 employees (26%) and the smallest percent of respondents (5%) represented organizations with 5,001-10,000 employees. All other organization sizes accounted for 8–17% of the sample.

Exhibit 1.7

ORGANIZATION SIZE TABLE

2019 2020

Number of Employees Number Percent Number Percent

1-25 97 12% 67 8%

26-100 117 15% 85 11%

101-500 217 27% 216 26%

501-1,000 98 12% 125 16%

1,001-5,000 126 16% 135 17%

5,001-10,000 36 4% 37 5%

More than 10,000 114 14% 139 17%

Total 805 100% 804 100%

Exhibit 1.8

ORGANIZATION SIZE CHARTSExhibit 4

1–25

26–100

101–500

12%

15%

More than 10,000

14%

2019

27%

501–1,000

1,001 – 5,000

5,001 –10,000

12%

16%

4%

8%17%

2020

11%

26%

16%

17%

5%

1–25

26–100

101–500

More than 10,000

501–1,000

1,001 – 5,000

5,001 –10,000


13

Section II refers to all construction and maintenance work, including both union and nonunion (the remainder of the report after Section II focuses specifically on union only). This section documents the degree of growth or contraction projected by the study sample for 2020 (and for 2018 and 2019 from previous report years as points of comparison) and how long they believe the growth or contraction will last.

Section II is divided into two parts:

• Part 1. Overall Growth/Contraction• Part 2. Growth/Contraction by Demographic

Data Cut

- Role - Industry - Industry by Region

- Region - Organization Size

Part 1. Overall Growth/Contraction in the Construction and Maintenance IndustryExhibit 2.1 illustrates how the data for 2018–2020 fell into each of the rating options for growth (i.e.,

modest growth, growth, strong growth, and very strong growth), contraction (i.e., modest contraction, contraction, strong contraction, very strong contraction) and no change.

Since 2017, over 75% of the respondents have projected growth for the ensuing year. More specifically, from 2017–2020 there was very strong stability in the findings, with only a 3% fluctuation in the results. In other words, for all four years, from 76 - 78% reported that they anticipated growth in their organization. Moreover, those subjects in the study recording a “very strong growth” rating, the far right side of the rating scale in Exhibit 2.1, have consistently represented 24 - 25% of the ratings. Interestingly, in 2015, the first year of this study, just 9% envisioned very strong growth. Thus, the degree of optimism increased substantially from 2015–2017, and has now settled in at about a fourth of the sample for the past four years. Similarly, since 2016 when 26% projected contraction, just around 10% each year believed there would be contraction in the construction and maintenance industry.

II. GROWTH AND CONTRACTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY

Exhibit 2.1

GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY: 2018-2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

Very Strong Growth

Strong Growth

GrowthModest Growth

No ChangeModest Contraction

ContractionStrong Contraction

Very Strong Contraction

2018 2019 2020

3% 3%

6%

2%1% 1% 1%

2%3%

4%3% 3%

13%13%

11%

16%

18%

23%

15%

11%11%

22%

24% 24% 24%25%

Growth/Contraction: 2018-2020 exhibit 2.1

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

78% in 201876% in 201978% in 2020

19%


14

The chart in Exhibit 2.2 illustrates how growth and contraction ratings have trended from 2016–2020. There was a significant change from 2016 to 2017. Since then, the data have been quite consistent.

Exhibit 2.2

GROWTH AND CONTRACTION TREND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20202019201820172016

Growth Contraction

26%

58%

10%

78% 78%

9%

76% 78%

11% 11%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

As Exhibit 2.3 illustrates, expectations concerning the number of years the growth pattern will last have been quite consistent. For each of the past three years from 57 - 61% of the sample thought the growth would last 2-3 years. For 2020, other than the 11% who believe the growth projections will be fairly short lived (1 year or less), all respondents stated that they thought growth would last at least 2-3 years, with 32% reporting four or more years of growth.

Exhibit 2.3

TIMESPAN FOR GROWTH PROJECTIONS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

More than 5 Years4-5 Years2-3 Years1 Year or Less

10% 11%7%

59%61%

17% 16%

23%

11% 11%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

2018 2019 2020

57%

16%


15

Exhibit 2.4

PERCENT PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION BY ROLE: 2019 & 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

-40

-20

202020192020201920202019202020192020201920202019Association Construction

ManagerContractor/

SubcontractorOwner/Client

Union/LaborRepresentative

Total

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

sG

row

thC

on

tra

ctio

n

36%

32%19%21%

26%33%

33% 43% 39% 34% 36% 36%36% 29%

47% 49% 41% 42%

36%36%36%39%

35%35%

77%76%75% 72%

55% 61%

26% 26%

83% 85%

9% 7%

Strong Growth Growth Contraction Strong ContractionStrong Growth Growth Contraction Strong Contraction

20192020

10% 13%

Part 2. Growth/Contraction by Demographic Data CutExhibits 2.4–2.11 show results for growth/contraction by four data cuts: role, industry, region and organization size. The bars in the bar charts represent the percent of the sample providing each rating (i.e., growth, strong growth, contraction, strong contraction) not the actual percent of growth or contraction projected for the construction and maintenance industry.

In Exhibit 2.4, the results regarding growth/contraction projections for 2020 are shown by respondent role. For comparison, also included are growth projections for 2019 from last year’s study. One of the most noticeable results of the growth ratings by role is the

difference between two roles: Owner/Client and Union/Labor Representative, representing the lowest and highest ratings, respectively. In 2020, 61% of Owners/Clients foresaw growth whereas 85% of Union/Labor representatives projected growth. This finding is consistent with findings from last year.

The Contractor role, which contained the majority of the management respondents, fell in-between these two extremes, with about three fourths or a little less of them projecting growth in 2019 and 2020.


16

Exhibit 2.5

AVERAGE GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS BY ROLE: 2019 & 2020

Gro

wth

Pro

ject

ion

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

Union/LaborOwner/ClientContractor/SubcontractorConstruction ManagerAssociation

2019

2020

2019 Average

2020 Average

Average Growth/Contraction Projections by Role: 2019 & 2020

It is useful to note that the values shown for Exhibits 2.5, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.11 are the average of all ratings—those reporting growth, those reporting contraction and those reporting no change. Although the line graphs are valuable because they concisely and accurately summarize all ratings, the contraction ratings (negative values in the analysis) and growth ratings (positive values) tend to cancel each other out somewhat when calculating the average. As a result, the averages contained in the line graphs are somewhat “muted.” In other words, if the average were calculated separately for those reporting growth and those reporting contraction the results would be more pronounced.

In Exhibit 2.5, the average growth/contraction projections by role are shown. Whereas, Exhibit 2.4 shows the percent of responses for various response options (i.e., growth, strong growth, contraction, strong contraction) and does not show those who said there would be no growth, this analysis uses all ratings and calculates the average degree of growth expected.

The change in average ratings from Association representatives from 2019 to 2020 was significant, as shown in Exhibit 2.5. Their average growth ratings fell

from just under 6% (5.9%) in 2019 to 3.5% in 2020. This change was due, in large part, to a larger percent of Association members projecting contraction in 2020, as displayed in Exhibit 2.4.

The arrow in Exhibit 2.5 points to the juxtaposition of the low Owner/Client and high Union/Labor average ratings, consistent with the percentage results discussed with Exhibit 2.4.


17

Exhibit 2.6

PERCENT PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION BY INDUSTRY: 2019 & 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

-40

-20

202020192020201920202019202020192020201920202019Civil Commercial/

InstitutionalManufacturing Petroleum/

Natural Gas/Chemical

Utility Total

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

sG

row

thC

on

tra

ctio

n

55% 32%

28%

37% 41% 35%

76% 77%

52% 60%

23% 21%

32%

43%

34% 51%

40%

41% 35%

36%

41% 37%

33%

46%32%

21%

31%42%

35%

41%


20192020

87%77% 81%

88%

10%5%

69%

79%

20%

5%11%11%

Exhibit 2.6 shows that the greatest optimism for growth is with the Commercial/Institutional industry for 2020, where a large majority, 88%, of the respondents projected growth (51% growth, 37% strong growth), up from an already strong 81% in 2019. Although results were higher in 2020 than last year, the lowest expectations for growth were still with the Utility industry in 2020 (60% indicated some degree of growth and 21% expect contraction). Ratings for the Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical clearly conveyed a decrease/increase in growth/contraction expectations

The upward sloping ovals highlight industries in which there is growing optimism—the percent of responses expecting growth increased from 2019 to 2020 or the percent expecting contraction decreased. Downward sloping ovals point to industries in the opposite situation, where the results show a decline in growth projections or an increase in contraction projections.


18

Exhibit 2.7

AVERAGE GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS BY INDUSTRY: 2019 & 2020

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

UtilityManufacturingCommercial/Institutional

Civil

Gro

wth

Pro

ject

ion


Chemical

2019

2020

2019 Average

2020 Average

Consistent with Exhibit 2.6, Exhibit 2.7 illustrates the decline in the expected growth, as an average, for the Civil and Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical industries. As expected, and parallel to the findings in Exhibit 2.6, the Utility industry reflected some of the lowest average ratings for growth in 2019 and 2020.

Interestingly, the ratings in Exhibit 2.7 for Commercial/Institutional were the same in 2019 and 2020 (6.1%) even though the percent of responses favoring growth

was higher in 2020 than in 2019 (see Exhibit 2.6). This is because a slightly lower percentage of those overall growth ratings for Commercial/Institutional in 2020 were in the more tempered “growth” range rather than the “strong growth” category. Thus, there certainly are solid and pervasive expectations for growth for Commercial/Institutional work. However, not as many respondents were willing to extend their ratings to the more extreme rating category.


19

Exhibit 2.8

PERCENT PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION BY REGION: 2019 & 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

-40

-20

’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19’20’19New

EnglandMiddle Atlantic

Southeast East North Central

West North Central

SouthCentral

Mtn Northern Plains

Northwest Southwest Total

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

sG

row

thC

on

tra

ctio

n

76% 77%


20192020

41%

38%

32%

46%

35%

45%

38%

35%

44%

38%

38%

43%

40%

36%

43%

34%

42%

25%

48%

30%

36%

27%

45%

35%

40%

28%

50%

24%

39%

32%

51%

33%

51%

27%

44%

31%

41%

35%

42%

35%

80%73%

67%

78%71%

84%

63%

80%

17%12% 13%

9%

78%75%

9%13% 11%11%

Region States

New England Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Middle Atlantic District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania


East North Central Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia

West North Central Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Mountain Northern Plains Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming



Differences in growth/contraction projections among the nine geographic regions are displayed in Exhibit 2.8. Meaningful differences in year-over-year change in a region are noted with ovals. After a drop in 2019, the South Central and Northwest regions had a resurgence this year over last year (South Central 2019 to 2020: 63% to 80% projecting growth, 17% to 12% projecting contraction. Northwest 2019 to 2020: 71% to 84% projecting growth, 13% to 9% projecting contraction). The West North Central region also experienced growth, but to a lesser degree.

Two regions exhibited a decline from 2019 to 2020: Middle Atlantic and Southwest. Although still modest, the current year decline was more distinguished in the Southwest (2019 to 2020: 78% to 75% projecting growth, 9% to 13% projecting contraction) than in the Middle Atlantic region where contraction scores were relatively unchanged.


20

Exhibit 2.9

AVERAGE GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS BY REGION: 2019 & 2020

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

SouthwestNorthwestMtn Northern Plains

South Central

West North Central

East North Central

SoutheastMiddle Atlantic

New England

Average Growth/Contraction Projections by Region: 2019 & 2020 Exhibit 2.9

Gro

wth

Pro

ject

ion

2019

2020

2019 Average

2020 Average

As a reminder, the analyses for these averages include all ratings—growth, shortage and no change—whereas the statistics in the colored bar charts in this section look at just the growth and shortage data (no change is excluded) and show what percent of the responses fell into each rating category.

As illustrated in Exhibit 2.9, analyses to determine the average growth/contraction ratings show that the most significant changes from 2019 to 2020 were in the South Central and Southwest regions. For the South Central region, 2020 ratings were higher than in 2019, whereas for the Southwest region the opposite was true. These results align with those in Exhibit 2.8.

Additionally, the findings of this study suggest that the eastern part of the United States will have a stronger year in construction and maintenance than the western part. More specifically, the average growth percent rating was 5.6% for CLRC regions that are entirely or partially east of the Mississippi River and 4.3% for those west of the Mississippi.


21

Exhibit 2.10

PERCENT PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION BY ORGANIZATION SIZE: 2019 & 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

-40

-20

20202019202020192020201920202019202020192020201920202019202020191–25 26-100 101-500 501–1,000 1,001–5,000 5,001–10,000 10,000+ Total

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

sG

row

thC

on

tra

ctio

n

76% 77%

65%

85%

21%

8%

35%45%

21%26%

46%

44%

37%42%

42%

33%

49%29%

37%

36%40%

37%

40%41%

43%

42%48%

33%

48%

43%

32%

42%40%

21%

44% 42%

35%

41%


20192020

74%

64%

12%

25%

11%11%

There was a significant shift in perspectives regarding growth and contraction for two types of organizations for 2020, as shown in Exhibit 2.10. The organizations with the greatest number of employees (10,001+ employees) are optimistic about 2020, with 85% reporting anticipated growth in their organization (40% growth, 45% strong growth). This is a dramatic increase of 20% from one year ago.

Conversely, the next largest organizations, those with 5,001–10,000 employees, have much less optimism

about 2020. Specifically, the percent of this cohort reporting growth fell by 10% (74% in 2019 to 64% in 2020) while the percent reporting contraction more than doubled (12% in 2019 to 25% in 2020).

Ratings for the remaining seven regions were generally stable from 2019 to 2020. Outside of the largest organizations, the smallest (1-25 employees) and middle sized companies (501-1,000 employees) expressed the most positive outlook, as shown by the box.


22

Exhibit 2.11

AVERAGE GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS BY ORGANIZATION SIZE: 2019 & 2020Average Growth/Contraction Projections by Organization Size: 2019 & 2020 exhibit 2.11

Gro

wth

Pro

ject

ion

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10,001+5,001-10,0001,001-5,000501-1,000101-50026-1001-25

2019 Average

2020 Average

2019

2020

Exhibit 2.11 reflects findings similar to Exhibit 2.10—in particular the changes for the top two organization sizes. In addition, like last year, there was a noticeable differentiation between the smaller and larger organizations regarding average growth ratings, with

the smaller ones being more likely to predict growth than the larger ones for 2020. The average growth projection for those organizations with 1,000 or fewer employees was 5.3%; for those with more than 1,000 employees the average was 4.2%.


23

Exhibit 2.12

GROWTH/CONTRACTION PROJECTIONS: INDUSTRY BY REGION

Civil Commercial/Institutional Manufacturing Utility Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical

Gro

wth

/C

on

tra

ctio

n P

roje

ctio

ns

SouthwestNorthwestMountainNorthern Plains

SouthCentral

WestNorth Central

EastNorth Central

SoutheastMiddleAtlantic

New England

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Co

ntr

act

ion

Gro

wth

The average growth/contraction projections were further analyzed by looking at the data in an even more detailed manner: industry by region. In other words, the growth/contraction ratings were examined for each industry in each region. Exhibit 2.12 describes the results.

Highlights of Exhibit 2.12 include the following:

• Civil: The Civil industry is the second strongest one overall and is strongest in the Middle Atlantic, Southeast, East North Central and South Central regions. However, its negative growth score in the Northwest is notable. Results for the Southwest region were suppressed due to low data count.

• Commercial/Institutional: The Commercial/Institutional industry is very consistent across all regions (5.2% – 7.7%), as was the case last year. And with no negative values in any region, it is the overall best industry for growth in the United States.

• Manufacturing: The Manufacturing industry had its highest growth average in the Southeast region. The Southwest region projects contraction for this industry.

• Utility: The Utility industry was generally more pedestrian than the other industries regarding growth/contraction ratings, with no negative values (contraction) and generally modest growth numbers, except for the Northwest region where there were especially strong growth projections.

• Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical: The Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical industry had the lowest growth ratings. In particular, ratings for the Southwest region were not favorable for the Petroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical industry. Results for the New England region were the most favorable.


24

Exhibits 2.13 – 2.16 aggregate the percent of responses into three categories: contraction, no change and growth. Results are displayed using a separate

chart for each industry. As expected, the growth category dominates. Closer inspection shows the variances across the geographic regions for each craft.

Exhibit 2.13

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION: CIVIL

0

20

40

60

80

100

GrowthNo ChangeContraction

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

New England Middle Atlantic Southeast East North Central West North Central South CentralMountain Northern Plains Northwest

Commercial/Institutiional


25

Exhibit 2.14

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION: COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL

Percent of Responses Projecting Growth/Contraction: Commercia/Institutional exhibit 2.14

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%


0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

sNew England Middle Atlantic Southeast East North Central West North Central South CentralMountain Northern Plains Northwest

Exhibit 2.15

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION: MANUFACTURING

Percent of Responses Projecting Growth/Contraction: Manufacturing exhibit 2.15

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%


0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s



26

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION: UTILITY

Percent of Responses Projecting Growth/Contraction: Utility exhibit 2.16

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%


0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s


Exhibit 2.17

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING GROWTH/CONTRACTION: PETROLEUM/NATURAL GAS/CHEMICAL

Percent of Responses Projecting Growth/Contraction: Petro/NG/Chem exhibit 2.17

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%


0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s


Exhibit 2.16


27

III. UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE AND SURPLUSSection III refers specifically to union craft labor. This section describes how respondents reported the union craft labor shortage or surplus in their organization in 2019 (versus what they assume was happening in other organizations where they do not have first-hand knowledge). These can be considered as “actual” results since respondents reported their company’s experience from the previous year (not more subjective projections for upcoming years).

Similar to the layout of Section II, Section III provides results in two parts:• Part 1. Overall Union Craft Labor Shortage/Surplus• Part 2. Union Craft Labor Shortage/Surplus by

Demographic Data Cut

- Role - Industry - Industry by Region

- Region - Organization Size

Part 1. Overall Union Craft Labor Shortage/SurplusWith the 2020 data, there has been a change in the nature of the union craft labor shortage/surplus narrative—from a growing shortage to stable shortage. That is, after a number of years of increases in the shortage data, there is now a leveling off. The data seems to have topped out (or bottomed out, depending on how one defines it). Exhibit 3.1 shows that for the past three years, each of the four descriptions of the labor shortage have become quite consistent. To summarize, the three year (2017–2019) range of ratings for each category is shown below:

• Large Shortage: 15–18%• Small Shortage: 48–54%

• Right Size: 25–27%• Surplus: 6–7%

No category has varied more than six percent for the past three years. Prior to the stabilization established this year, there was an upward trend in the concern over the union craft worker shortage. It is important to note that although the data has plateaued, the labor shortage issue has not disappeared. It has just stabilized.

Exhibit 3.1

UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE: 2017-2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SurplusRight SizeSmall ShortageLarge Shortage

2017 2018 2019

17%18%

15%

50%48%

54%

26% 27%25%

7% 7%6%

2017: 67% Shortage2018: 69% Shortage2019: 66% Shortage

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

2017: 33% Right Size or Surplus 2018: 31% Right Size or Surplus2019: 34% Right Size or Surplus

Sh

ort

ag

e

Rig

ht

Siz

e o

r S

urp

lus


28

Exhibit 3.2

AVERAGE SIZE OF SHORTAGE AND SURPLUS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Too ManySmall ShortageLarge Shortage

23%

11%

17%

Siz

e o

f S

ho

rta

ge

/S

urp

lus

(pe

rce

nta

ge

)

18% of Respondents

48% of Respondents

7% of Respondents

Note, Exhibit 3.2 shows the actual size of the reported shortages and surpluses. The text boxes refer to the percent of respondents providing that response.

The questionnaire used in the study asked participants to indicate what they meant when they responded to the terms “Large Shortage” and “Small Shortage.” Exhibit 3.2 empirically summarizes how respondents view a large and small shortage. A large shortage was a shortage of 23%, on average; a small shortage was about half that at 11%. The average overage of too many union craft workers was 17%.

It should be noted that respondents were asked to rate the entire year 2019. It is likely that their organization experienced ebbs and flows throughout the course of the year in its union craft labor supply. Exhibit 3.2 shows the annual average.


29

Part 2. Union Craft Labor Shortage/Surplus by Demographic Data CutExhibits 3.3 – 3.6 show results for the union craft labor supply in 2019 (and 2018 for comparison) by four data cuts: role, industry, region and organization size. The different colors in the bars represent the percent of the sample providing each rating (i.e., large shortage, small shortage, right size, surplus), not the actual percent of shortage or surplus in the union craft workforce. In Exhibit 3.3, the results for 2018 and 2019 from Exhibit 3.1 are broken out by respondent role.

The two roles providing the greatest shortage ratings are both management roles—Construction Manager and Contractor/Subcontractor. The roles with the smallest shortage ratings came from the Union/Labor participants in the study. The boxes around the two cohorts in Exhibit 3.3 help distinguish the two.

Moreover, from 2018 to 2019 both management groups saw an increase in their shortage ratings while the ratings from labor, on average, decreased.

This exhibit tenders a clear juxtaposition of a theme that occurs throughout this report: the greater/less concern by management/labor over the union craft labor shortage. However, although there are significant differences in ratings, it should be noted that both management and labor still clearly see a shortage in union craft workers in construction. The “difference” lies in perspectives on the degree of the shortage.

As highlighted by the three upward slanting ovals, the role with the greatest change was Association employee, where both small shortage and large shortage ratings increased and surplus ratings decreased from 2018 to 2019.

Exhibit 3.3

UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE/SURPLUS IN 2018 & 2019: BY ROLE

201920182019201820192018201920182019201820192018Association Construction

ManagerContractor/

SubcontractorOwner/Client Union/Labor

RepresentativeTotal

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Surplus Right Size

Small Shortage Large Shortage

2018 2019

46%51%

33%

12%9%

28%

13% 9%

44%66%

33%27%

7%

22%

48%54%

26%

7%6%

25%

15% 18%

53%57%

18%

1%4%

22%

17%28%

50%59%

30%

45%

24%

24%

15%

3%

19%

19%35%

Union Labor Shortage/Surplus by Role: 2018 & 2019 exhibit 3.3

2019 average percent

reporting a large shortage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hig

her

Shor

tage

Low

er S

hort

age


reporting a shortage

15%

29%

10%

24%

2018 percent reporting a shortage


30

Exhibit 3.4

UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE/SURPLUS BY INDUSTRY: 2018 & 2019

201920182019201820192018201920182019201820192018Civil Commercial/

InstitutionalManufacturing Petroleum/Natural

Gas/ChemicalUtility Total

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Union Labor Shortage/Surplus by Industry: 2018 & 2019 exhibit 3.4





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

13%

44%47%

10%10% 8%

16%

Surplus Right Size


2018 2019

50%58%

22%

9%

31% 32%30%

14%

47%59%

3% 12%

20%

21%24%

27%

52%56%

1% 5%

17%

26%16%

15%

48%54%

6% 7%

18%

26%

25%

13%

51%60%

3% 1%

29%

19%24%

12%19%

As shown in Exhibit 3.4, the industry with the smallest proportion of the sample reporting a union craft labor shortage (as well as the largest percent reporting a surplus for 2019) was the Commercial/Institutional industry. Results were consistent from 2018 to 2019 with 60% reporting a shortage and 8-10% reporting a surplus each year. This is especially good news since the Commercial/Institutional industry was the industry

with the strongest growth prospect, as outlined in Section II (See Exhibit 2.6).

The upward angling ovals for Manufacturing show the growth in shortage ratings from 2018 to 2019. Similarly, the downward sloping ovals for the Utility industry highlight how shortage concerns for this industry have declined (i.e., improved) since 2018.


31

Exhibit 3.5

UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE/SURPLUS BY REGION: 2018 & 2019

'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18'19’18

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

New England

Middle Atlantic

Southeast East North Central

West North Central

SouthCentral

Mtn Northern Plains

Northwest Southwest Total



2019 average percent reporting a large shortage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Surplus Right Size


2018 2019

35%

15%

37%

49%

30%

19%

53% 58%

10%4% 6%

49% 56%52%

27%

20%

55%55%

4% 6%

14% 19%

21%

50%50%

7% 8%

24% 21%

19%22%

55%51%

3% 5%

21% 21%

21% 23%

56%49%

3% 7%

25%22%

15%

21%

49% 46%55%

4% 5%

27%20% 19%

19%

3% 5%9%

13%23%

20% 18%

54%48%

6% 7%

25% 26%

15%23%

26%21%

31%

19%30%

13%

13%

Region States

New England Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, VermontMiddle Atlantic District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania


East North Central Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia West North Central Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, NebraskaSouth Central Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, TexasMountain Northern Plains Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming



2018 percent reporting a large

shortage

2018 percent reporting a shortage

Exhibit 3.5 shows analyses on the union craft labor shortage/surplus data by geographic region. The downward pointing ovals for the New England region point to a reduction in the shortage of union craft workers in 2019, which is good. The upward angling ovals for the Southwest and South Central regions suggest growing shortages of workers in those areas.

In particular, for the South Central region there was an increase in those reporting a large shortage and a small shortage, as well as a decrease in those reporting a surplus.

The rectangle encompasses those regions with the greatest shortages in 2019—the South Central, Mountain Northern Plains and Northwest regions.


32

Exhibit 3.6

UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE/SURPLUS BY ORGANIZATION SIZE: 2018 & 2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2019201820192018201920182019201820192018201920182019201820192018

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

1–25 26-100 101-500 501–1,000 1,001–5,000 5,001–10,000 10,000+ Total





Surplus Right Size


2018 2019

20%

46%

38%

7%2%

39%

40%

7%

24%

55%

49%

4% 1%

29%25%

13%22%

53%

41%

9% 7%

25%

31%

15%13%

63%52%

5% 10%

16%25%

15% 15%

52%54%

5% 5%

30% 26%

13% 19%

48%45%

3%

13%

18%

23%

30% 18%

57%54%

4%

11%

16%18%

22% 18%

54%48%

6% 7%

25%26%

15%

The busyness of the ovals in Exhibit 3.6 makes a useful point. From 2018 to 2019, smaller organizations on the left side of the exhibit had a growing concern about the union craft labor shortage (ovals slant upward where there are noticeable changes) while mid-sized and large employers rated the shortage as less in 2019 than in 2018 (ovals slant downward). Ironically, although the smallest organizations (1-25) had increasing labor shortage scores in 2019, their ratings still remain lower than the other organization size categories regarding

experiencing a union craft worker shortage in their organization.

Results indicate that the work-worker situation may align well for the largest employers. They generally projected strong growth for 2020 (Exhibit 2.10) and their worker shortage declined in 2019 (Exhibit 3.6). On the other hand, smaller organizations had some of the stronger growth projections for 2020 (Exhibit 2.10), yet also have growing concerns about the worker supply (Exhibit 3.6).


33

In order to gain an even better understanding of the worker shortage/surplus data, the interaction between industry and geographic region was studied. That is, in Exhibits 3.7–3.15 each of the nine charts represents a different geographic region. Within each chart, the percent of ratings that fall in each rating option (large shortage, small shortage, right size, surplus) is shown for each of the five industries.

These charts are valuable in order to pinpoint more precisely where the union craft labor shortages (and surpluses) exist relative to two parameters simultaneously: industry and region.

Exhibit 3.7

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: NEW ENGLAND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.8

UtilityPetroleum/Natural Gas/Chemical

ManufacturingCommercial/Institutiional

Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Large Shortage Small Shortage Right Size Surplus

Exhibit 3.8

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: MIDDLE ATLANTIC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



34

Exhibit 3.9

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: SOUTHEAST

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


Exhibit 3.10

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: EAST NORTH CENTRAL

Shortage Surplus: East North Central exhibit 3.12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.7



Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



35

Exhibit 3.11

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: WEST NORTH CENTRAL

Shortage Surplus: WestNorth Central exhibit 3.13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


Exhibit 3.12

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: SOUTH CENTRAL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.8



Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



36

Exhibit 3.13

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: MOUNTAIN NORTHERN PLAINS

Shortage Surplus: Mountain Northern Plains exhibit 3.15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.0



Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


Exhibit 3.14

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: NORTHWEST

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



37

Exhibit 3.15

SHORTAGE/SURPLUS: SOUTHWEST

Shortage Surplus: Southwest exhibit 3.17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Civil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



38

The findings in Section IV are organized into four parts. Comparisons among the 14 crafts covered in this study will be shown for the first three parts. • Part 1. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019• Part 2. Projected Shortage/Surplus for 2020• Part 3. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019 for

Apprentices• Part 4. Difficult to Find, High Demand Skills

Within Parts 1-3 listed above, results will be shown in two ways. First, by prevalence by listing the percent of the study participants for each craft whose ratings fell into four categories:

• Shortage (1% – 6%)• Large Shortage (7% and greater)• Surplus (1% – 6%)• Large Surplus (7% and greater)

Second, by intensity by showing the average shortage/ surplus rating for each craft. Whereas the shortage/ surplus colored bar charts described above show the percent of responses in each category (and do not include those who said their organization had neither a shortage nor a surplus), the line charts convey the average rating and take all ratings into consideration in calculating the overall average, including those who said 0% (i.e., no shortage or surplus).

Part 4 lists the results for open ended questions in the study questionnaire which asked participants to list the skills/tasks that were the most difficult to fill in their organization.

Exhibits 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5 show the percent (prevalence) of responses falling into each surplus/shortage category. Exhibits 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6 show the size of the shortage/surplus. This can be called the intensity of the shortage/surplus.

It is useful to note that the intensity values shown for Exhibits 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6 are the average of all ratings—those reporting a shortage, those reporting a surplus and those reporting neither. Although these graphs are valuable because they concisely and accurately summarize all ratings, the shortage ratings (negative values in the analysis) and surplus ratings (positive values) tend to cancel each other out somewhat when calculating the average.

As a result, the averages contained in the line graphs look somewhat “muted.” In other words, if the average were calculated separately for only those reporting a shortage the values would be much larger or more pronounced. Similarly, an average calculated only on a subset of the study sample containing just those reporting a surplus would be more pronounced as well.

The percentages shown in the Exhibits 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5 in the colored bars may not sum to 100% within each bar. This is because those who reported that there was neither a shortage nor a surplus in their organization are not shown.

IV. UNION CRAFT LABOR SHORTAGE AND SURPLUS—CRAFT COMPARISON


39

Part 1. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2 focus on the union craft labor supply last year, in 2019, with comparison data for 2018.

Exhibit 4.1 illustrates, by craft, what percent of the ratings in this study fell into four rating categories:

• shortage• large shortage • surplus • large surplus

This is the prevalence of the shortage/surplus. Data are sorted in descending order based on the percent reporting a union craft labor shortage in their organization in 2019. Results for 2018 are paired with the 2019 data for each craft as a useful point of comparison.

Results show that the most frequently reported shortages for 2019 were with Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians. Both of these crafts had approximately two thirds of their responses reporting a shortage of union craft workers, with a third or more classifying this shortage as a large shortage.

Interestingly, 12 of the 14 crafts saw a decrease in the percent of respondents reporting a shortage of that craft in their organization. In other words, the union craft labor shortage lessened for most crafts in 2019. The biggest changes from 2018 to 2019 were for Plasterers & Cement Masons, Boilermakers and Bricklayers & Allied Crafts; each of these had a much smaller shortage in 2019 than in 2018.

Two crafts saw an increase in their shortage numbers (i.e., a greater shortage in 2019 than in 2018): Electricians and Roofers & Waterproofers.

On average, 43% (down from 55% last year) of the sample for these craft specific items in Section IV said there had been a union craft worker shortage in their organization in 2019; and 10% said there was a surplus (up from 7% last year). An interesting point of comparison are the results in Section III for the more general question, “Did your organization experience a union craft labor shortage in 2019?”.

For those results in Section III, 66% said there was a shortage in their organization (see Exhibit 3.1). Thus, tallying data for each specific craft (Section IV) resulted in a lower percent (43%) reporting a shortage than when a general question about union craft labor shortage was asked (66% in Section III). The reason for this difference is that the data come from different questions with different rating scales. Additionally, respondents provided answers when thinking about each craft individually in Section IV rather than all crafts combined as in Section III.


40

Exhibit 4.1 (prevalence)

PERCENT OF RESPONSES INDICATING A SHORTAGE OR SURPLUS IN 2018 & 2019 BY CRAFT—DESCENDING ORDER BASED ON 2019 DATA

Percent of Responses Indicating a Shortage or Surplus in 2018 & 2019 by Craft—Descending Order Based on 2019 Data

Percent of Responses SurplusShortage80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Teamsters

Bricklayers & Allied Crafts

Plasterers & Cement Masons

Painters &Allied Trades

Boilermakers

Operating Engineers

Laborers

Sheet Metal Workers

Average

Heat & Frost Insulators

Roofers &Waterproofers

Plumbers/Pipefitters/Steamfitters

Iron Workers

Electricians

Carpenters & Millwrights

5 10 15 20 25 30

2019

20182019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

Large Surplus

20192018

Large Shortage Shortage Surplus

2019 ShortageAverage

2019 SurplusAverage


41

Exhibit 4.2 (intensity)

AVERAGE SHORTAGE/SURPLUS RATING BY CRAFT IN 2018 & 2019

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1

Team

sters

Shee

t Meta

l

Worke

rsRo

ofers

&

Water

proofe

rs

Plumbers/Pipefitters/

Steamfitters

Plaste

rers &

Ceme

nt Ma

sons

Paint

ers &

Allied

Trad

es

Opera

ting

Engin

eers

Labo

rers

Iron W

orkers

Heat

& Fro

st

Insula

tors

Electr

icians

Carpe

nters

&

Millw

rights

Brick

layers

&

Allied

Craf

ts

Boiler

make

rs

Pe

rce

nt

2018All Craft Average


2018

2019

Sh

ort

ag

eS

urp

lus

Shee

t Meta

l Work

ers


0

Exhibit 4.1 contains results concerning prevalence, the percent of the responses that fall into each of the four different shortage and surplus rating options. As a complimentary analysis, Exhibit 4.2 below shows the average shortage or surplus rating for each craft, the intensity of the shortage. There is general agreement between these two sets of analyses regarding the crafts with the greatest shortage in 2019.

Combining the prevalence results from Exhibit 4.1 and the intensity results in Exhibit 4.2, the following crafts had the most substantial shortages in 2019: Carpenters & Millwrights, Electricians and Iron Workers. The average shortage in 2018 was 3.4%; it fell noticeably to 2.5% for 2019. Most crafts fell in the 1-4% shortage range.

Part 2. Projected Shortage/Surplus in 2019Exhibits 4.3 and 4.4 focus on the projected union craft labor supply for the upcoming year, 2020.

Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2 in Part 1 look back in time at union craft staffing levels in 2019. Exhibits 4.3 and 4.4 provide a look ahead to respondent projections for 2020. These results are based on the study participants’ replies to questions asking them to project the shortage/surplus of union craft labor in 2020 in their organization. The crafts are listed in descending order

based on the 2020 data. Data from last year’s report are included as points of comparison.

The crafts with the largest projected shortage in 2020 are Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians, two of the same crafts that had the largest actual shortages in 2019 (Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2). For both, about two thirds of the responses indicated a shortage, with over a third noting a large shortage. This is very similar to the 2019 results for these two crafts. Eleven of the 14 crafts saw a lessening of their projected worker shortage in 2020 compared to 2019; this was most pronounced with Boilermakers and Bricklayers & Allied Trades.


42


PERCENT OF RESPONSES PROJECTING A SHORTAGE OR SURPLUS IN 2019 BY CRAFT—DESCENDING ORDER BASED ON 2020 DATA

Percent of Responses Projecting a Shortage or Surplus in 2019 by Craft— Descending Order Based on 2020 Data

Percent of Responses SurplusShortage80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Teamsters




Laborers

Sheet Metal Workers

Operating Engineers

Average

Boilermakers




Iron Workers

Electricians


5 10 15 20 25

2020

20192020

2019

2020

20192020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

20192020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

20192020

2019

2019 ShortageAverage

2019 SurplusAverage

Large Surplus

20202019



43


AVERAGE PROJECTED SHORTAGE/SURPLUS RATING BY CRAFT IN 2019 AND 2020

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1Team

sters

Shee

t Meta

l Work

ers

Roofe

rs &

Water

proofe

rs

Plumb

ers/P

ipefitt

ers/S

teamfi

tters

Pe

rce

nt

Average Projected Shortage/Surplus Rating by Craft in 2019 and 2020

Sh

ort

ag

eS

urp

lus

Team

sters

Shee

t Meta

l

Worke

rsRo

ofers

&

Water

proofe

rs

Plumb

ers/ P

ipefitt

ers/

Steam

fitters

Plaste

rers &

Ceme

nt Ma

sons

Paint

ers &

Allied

Trad

es

Opera

ting

Engin

eers

Labo

rers

Iron W

orkers

Heat

& Fro

st

Insula

tors

Electr

icians

Carpe

nters

&

Millw

rights

Brick

layers

&

Allied

Craf

ts

Boiler

make

rs

2019

2020

2019 All Craft Average

2020 All Craft Average

Lorem ipsum

As shown in Exhibit 4.4, the average 2019 and 2020 ratings for projected union craft labor shortages/ surpluses were often, but not always, parallel, with the ratings for 2020, with the data line for 2020 generally above the line for 2019. This indicates that the expectation for a shortage of workers is less in 2020 than in 2019.

Two crafts are of special note based on the data in Exhibit 4.4: Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians.

These are the two crafts whose average shortage was the most severe in 2020 and whose projected shortage in 2020 was greater than 2019.

The following crafts had the most substantial shortages projected for 2020: Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians. Each had approximately two thirds of the responses note a shortage (Exhibit 4.3), and they had the most significant shortage averages (Exhibit 4.4).

Part 3. Actual Shortage/Surplus in 2019 for ApprenticesExhibits 4.5 and 4.6 focus on the union craft labor supply of apprentices last year, in 2019. These results are based on respondents’ replies to questions asking them about union craft apprentice levels in their organization in 2019. The crafts are listed in descending order based on 2019 data. Data from last year’s report are included as points of comparison.

The results for apprentices followed the pattern for the actual results for 2019 and the projections for 2020, illustrated in Exhibits 4.1-4.4. Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians were the two crafts with the most significant shortage of apprentices in 2019, as shown in Exhibit 4.5. There was a decrease in the pervasiveness of the shortage for 11 of the 14 crafts. The biggest reduction in the shortage occurred with Bricklayers & Allied Trades.


44


PERCENT OF RESPONSES INDICATING A SHORTAGE OR SURPLUS OF APPRENTICES IN 2018 & 2019 BY CRAFT— DESCENDING ORDER BASED ON 2019 DATA

Percent of Responses Indicating a Shortage or Surplus of Apprentices in 2018 & 2019 by Craft— Descending Order Based on 2019 Data

0.70 0.75 0.80

Percent of Responses SurplusShortage80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Teamsters




Laborers

Sheet Metal Workers


Operating Engineers

Boilermakers

Average

Iron Workers



Electricians


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70

2019

20182019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

2018

2019

20182019

2018

2019ShortageAverage

2019 SurplusAverage

Large Surplus

20192018



45


AVERAGE SHORTAGE/SURPLUS RATING FOR APPRENTICES BY CRAFT IN 2018 & 2019

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Pe

rce

nt

Sh

ort

ag

eS

urp

lus

Team

sters

Shee

t Meta

l

Worke

rsRo

ofers

&

Water

proofe

rs

Plumb

ers/ P

ipefitt

ers/

Steam

fitters

Plaste

rers &

Ceme

nt Ma

sons

Paint

ers &

Allied

Trad

es

Opera

ting

Engin

eers

Labo

rers

Iron W

orkers

Heat

& Fro

st

Insula

tors

Electr

icians

Carpe

nters

&

Millw

rights

Brick

layers

&

Allied

Craf

ts

Boiler

make

rs

1



2018

2019

Exhibit 4.6 shows average apprentice shortage ratings. The average degree of shortage was 3.3% in 2018 and less, 2.1%, in 2019. Three crafts had the most significant shortage of apprentices when looking at intensity (Exhibit 4.6): Carpenters & Millwrights, Electricians and Heat & Frost Insulators.

When combining the results from Exhibit 4.5 (pervasiveness) and Exhibit 4.6 (intensity), the crafts with the greatest apprentice needs are Carpenters & Millwrights and Electricians.


46

Exhibit 4.7

DIFFICULT TO FIND, HIGH DEMAND SKILLS Needed High Demand Skills 2019 2020

Welder 26% 31%

Plumber 5% 9%

Equipment Operator 4% 7%

HVAC Technician 3% 6%

Electrician 14% 6%

Pipefitter/Steamfitter 5% 6%

Roofer 2% 5%

Journeyman 7% 5%

Rigger 2% 3%

Ironworker 3% 3%

Service Technician 1% 3%

Medical Gas Fitter 2% 2%

Laborer 3% 2%

Millwright 3% 2%

Carpenter 2% 2%

Foreman/Supervisor 5% 2%

Insulator 2% 2%

Apprentice 2% 2%

Instrumentation 2% 1%

Boilermaker 1% 1%

Alignment - 1%

Sheet Metal Worker 2% -

Control Technician 2% -

Bricklayer 1% -

Painter 1% -

Outside Lineman 1% -

Part 4. Difficult to Find, High Demand SkillsParticipants in the study had the opportunity to list, in an open-ended manner, the skills/tasks that were most difficult to fill in their organization, and thereby in high demand. Exhibit 4.7 lists those in descending order based on the number of times that needed skill

was identified by the respondents in 2020. Results for 2019 are also shown for comparison. The most highly demanded skill, by far, was welding. Welding includes all types of welding (e.g., Mig, Tig, alloy, certified pipe). Some items mentioned in 2019 were not mentioned in 2020 and some items mentioned in 2020 were not mentioned in 2019, as shown by the missing data dashes at the bottom of the table.


47

Exhibit 5.1

PERCENTAGE OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT PAID PER DIEMS: BY ROLE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

OtherUnion/LaborRepresentative

Owner/ClientContractor/Subcontractor


Association

45%

67% 69%

73%

32%

69%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

V. PER DIEM PAYMENTS AND PREVALENCE

Part 1: Percentage of Organizations Paying Per DiemsNew for 2020, study participants were asked if the organization they worked for paid per diems in 2019 to union craft workers. Forty-eight percent of the respondents said “yes.” In other words, almost half of the respondents said their organizations paid p

Date post:	04-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

TAUC Union Labor Supply Study INTRODUCTION · 2020. 5. 5. · TAUC Union Labor Supply Study 2...

Documents