Skills & Training Archives - Centre for Future Work

Workforce Alliances an Opportunity for Canadian Unions to Shape Future Industrial Strategies

Jim Stanford — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 06:50:25 +0000

A new report co-published by the Centre for Future Work and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reviews six new ‘Workforce Alliances’ being established by the federal government as part of its economic strategy responding to Donald Trump’s trade war. The report concludes that the Alliances have potential to improve training, labour supply, and labour standards – but Canadian unions must be ambitious and assertive to ensure that they fulfil this potential.

The report, Hinge Moment for Canada’s Workforce and Industrial Policy, is based on research presented at the recent Canadian Industrial Relations Association conference at Université Laval in Québec.

The federal government is advancing these new Alliances to strengthen the labour side of major new investment and industrial policies. Somewhat reminiscent of the previous tripartite era of sector councils from the 1990s, unions are once again being invited to participate.

Ottawa has announced six Workforce Alliances, which largely mirror the government’s industry, energy and transportation infrastructure initiatives. On a parallel track, a historic $6 billion funding stream to support Red Seal skilled trades training has also been launched.

Unions have ample experience with supply-side training programs. Too many have focused solely on meeting the labour supply needs of employers, with limited benefits for workers and no opportunity to build union power. Could this iteration of workforce policy be an opportunity for the labour movement to do better? Does it create an opening to influence industrial policy, labour standards and worker rights?

At a special panel during the 2026 conference of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association (CIRA) at Université Laval in June, union experts and labour studies academics came together to review the Workforce Alliances and their associated training initiatives, and examine the opportunities for genuine trade union engagement.

The presentations to the CIRA conference are collected in this compendium. The goal is to start a bigger discussion among trade unionists and progressive researchers about a labour strategy that links workforce policy with labour standards and conditionalities across the industries and sectors receiving federal funding, including a larger role for unions in shaping industrial policy.

Several common themes emerge from the contributions collected here. First, workforce policy cannot be reduced to labour supply measures aimed solely at meeting employers’ skills needs. Second, sectoral institutions and public investments must be linked to stronger labour standards, worker retention and equitable employment outcomes. Finally, the Workforce Alliances raise broader questions about industrial governance and whether unions can use these new institutions to exercise meaningful influence over economic strategy and democratic decision-making.

Fred Wilson’s introduction traces the evolution of workforce policies from the old sector councils, to industry-led labour market information programs and now back to partial joint governance in the Workforce Alliances. In each case, the primary purpose has been to provide “labour market information,” or LMI, and training programs to meet employer needs. Yet, in this latest version of workforce policy, to meet the government’s promise of “not just jobs, but careers” will require going well beyond the LMI model. Labour’s goals in the new workforce policies must address sector and industry-based standards and industrial policies that create and sustain high-quality, value-added jobs.

Ken Delaney, the managing director of the Canadian Skilled Trades Employment Coalition (CSTEC), Canada’s longest-standing “sector council” model, speaks to the limits of the former sector councils that were confined by government agendas. CSTEC’s work highlights the promise of workforce programs to address worker transition, equity and inclusion, especially if workers are allowed to maintain EI benefits in training. The organization’s programs also demonstrate how the career-building potential of Red Seal training can be adapted to meet the needs of skilled workers in manufacturing and other sectors. Delaney encourages unions to seize the opportunity in the Workforce Alliances to integrate industrial policy with labour market policy.

Professor Evelyn Dionne’s study of the construction sector in Quebec warns that sector programs to increase labour force supply and speed up construction can lead to “a downward spiral marked by declining skill levels, lower-quality housing, inefficient green buildings and high turnover.” Dionne calls for project labour agreements (PLAs) to be incorporated into housing and construction projects in order to establish common and high-quality terms and conditions governing all workers and contractors. “By embedding training, equity and labour standards into procurement processes,” she writes, “PLAs can help ensure that accelerated construction does not come at the expense of quality or working conditions.”

After pressure from within the Liberal caucus, reinforced by advocacy from social policy and feminist advocates, the federal government agreed to establish a Workforce Alliance for the care economy. Laurell Ritchie, a member of the Care Economy Initiative, emphasizes that in the care economy, worker retention is as important as recruitment. Like industrial sectors, meeting workforce goals in the care economy will require sector-based programs and standards, and strong government leadership. The inclusion of the care economy among the Workforce Alliances is itself recognition that industry and workforce policy can be influenced by advocacy from unions and women’s organizations.

Unifor Research Director Angelo DiCaro’s contribution on the interrelationship between industrial policy and workforce policy underscores the need for the state to act as a “conductor” of a complex orchestra involving multiple public and private players. A weak state role leaves the government as a passive enabler of the private sector, resulting in “industrial improvisation” rather than industrial strategy. For the Workforce Alliances to make a real difference, they must go beyond workforce development—filling vacancies, and sponsoring training—to become well-rounded tables for “peak-level social dialogue” with “a whole-of-supply-chain approach” to labour standards and industrial growth.

As DiCaro aptly puts it, the Workforce Alliances could be “a vital cog in the wheel of industrial growth and rising workplace standards.” Alternatively, they could become an “unambitious and burdensome exercise, simply facilitating training fund transfers, and entirely delinked from future-facing industrial strategy.”

Prime Minister Carney has described this as a “hinge moment” for Canada, as Canadians collectively face up to the unprecedented threat posed by Donald Trump and aggression from Washington. It is also a hinge moment for labour. The potential reorientation of Canada’s economy away from deep dependence on U.S. export markets, with a greater role for active industrial policy and public investment, carries both opportunities and risks for unions and the workers they represent.

The Workforce Alliances are an opportunity for unions to shape this historic economic moment, leveraging workers’ position at the point of production to demand both material progress and democratic power as this pivot unfolds. Canada’s unions must demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity and political leverage to bring a working-class agenda to the Workforce Alliances, and help to shape this new era of industrial policy in favour of workers.

Please see the full paper here.

The post Workforce Alliances an Opportunity for Canadian Unions to Shape Future Industrial Strategies appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Youth Unemployment: The Canary in the Coal Mine

Jim Stanford — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 06:38:19 +0000

A version of this commentary was originally published at rabble.ca.

Unemployment has remained stubbornly high in Canada, made worse by the consequences of Donald Trump’s tariffs and the lingering effects of high interest rates. As always, young people bear the heaviest burden of a weakening labour market. They are the last hired, and first fired – and hence rising unemployment is a danger sign of labour market turbulence ahead. Last summer had the highest unemployment among returning students since the turn of the century (save the COVID pandemic), and the coming summer job season shows no signs of substantial improvement.

As of end-2025, there were some 420,000 unemployed workers in Canada under age 25, and they faced an average unemployment rate of 13.3%. The 25-29 age cohort can also be defined as ‘youth’; there were almost 200,000 of them unemployed at year’s end. That makes a total of over 600,000 unemployed people under 30, for a combined unemployment rate of about 10%. Unemployment is worst for the youngest workers: 18% for those under 20.

That youngest age cohort (15-19) has also seen the biggest increase in the unemployment rate in the last two years. In addition, the participation rate for all youth cohorts has also dropped somewhat (again, especially for the youngest workers). Without that drop in labour force participation, the official youth unemployment rate would be even higher. Unemployment is worse for young men than for young women.

Conventionally measured youth unemployment (15-24) is typically around twice as high as average unemployment, and the relationship between the two did not substantially change in recent years: youth unemployment has been very high, but rose in step (2 points up for every 1 point rise in the national average rate) with the broader weakening of the labour market.

For that reason, a central focus of the solution to youth unemployment must be a commitment to reduce allunemployment – rather than imagining ways to essentially ‘redistribute’ unemployment, by helping more young people to get hired in the context of a labour market that remains underutilized. Strategies to strengthen overall job-creation include: stronger private and public investment, stronger support for public and caring services, industrial policy to strengthen Canada’s value-added industries, and shifting the emphasis of monetary policy to prioritize job-creation along with inflation-control.

This commitment to full employment at the macroeconomic level can be usefully supplemented by particular targeted supports for young workers. Examples of these measures could include expanded summer and post-graduation job programs, stronger on-the-job and apprenticeship training programs (with direct links to post-graduate job opportunities), and experiential working and learning opportunities (such as Canada’s Katimavik program, or the proposed Youth Climate Corps) that give young people both new skills and general life experience.

There are some strategies for sharing the burden of unemployment that could indeed help young workers who might otherwise be laid off, but in ways that are fair for older workers, too. Work-sharing programs in workplaces hit by downsizing help to preserve overall headcounts (and avoid the main burden of layoffs falling on young workers with less seniority). Early retirement incentives can encourage older workers to voluntarily leave work during a downturn (again preserving employment for young workers with less seniority).

Additional measures can improve pay and income security in jobs disproportionately filled by young people. This would include a commitment to higher minimum wages (since a large share of minimum wage workers are youth), and better regulation of non-standard employment arrangements (such as gig and platform work, where young workers are also disproportionately concentrated).

The general economic well-being of young people can be further improved with other measures such as lower costs for essential services that are used intensively by youth (like tuition fees and public transit), and a comprehensive strategy for addressing Canada’s housing crisis (young people have been hardest hit by the unaffordability of home ownership and especially rents).

A far-reaching proposal in this vein could include a basic income for young people (perhaps 18-25), that would provide baseline income supports to avoid poverty and facilitate young people to undertake education, start businesses, and successfully launch their working lives. Together with the existing Canada Child Benefit, the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors, and the new Canada Disability Benefit, this would represent an important incremental step in creating a basic income floor for all Canadians.

Research has shown a ‘scarring’ effect for young workers who start their careers during a downturn, reducing their lifetime earnings trajectories by as much as 10% over their careers. That represents a lifetime loss (in real 2026 dollar terms of almost one-quarter million dollars! This income reduction results from both lost income during the initial years of unemployment, but more importantly from the reduced trajectory of earnings gains over a young worker’s subsequent years of work.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford recently spoke on the youth unemployment crisis, and how to support young workers, to the ‘Elbows Up T.O.’ assembly, organized by former Toronto Mayor John Sewell. A video of the full event is available through the ‘Elbows Up T.O.’ website.

The post Youth Unemployment: The Canary in the Coal Mine appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Supporting Skilled Trades Labour Supply as Canada Embarks on Historic Building Boom

Jim Stanford — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:24:04 +0000

Canadian governments and industries are getting set to launch a major expansion in infrastructure and housing construction, as part of the ‘elbows up’ response to uncertainty caused by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs. One potential challenge in that strategy will be ensuring adequate supply of skilled construction workers.

To discuss this issue, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently joined Matt Galloway, host of CBC Radio’s The Current, for an in-depth interview on the opportunities and challenges of skilled trades work as Canada gets ready to “build, baby, build.”

Stanford made several points during the interview challenging conventional wisdom that there is a perpetual ‘shortage’ of skilled labour in Canada, and that ‘red tape’ regarding certification and interprovincial mobility of skilled workers is holding back construction work:

Reported shortages of construction work have eased dramatically since 2022—when labour supply was severely disrupted by the pandemic. Unemployment among construction workers has averaged over 8% so far in 2025, higher than the average for the national labour market. And job vacancies have fallen by more than half, from over 7% of employment in 2022 to around 3% today. The slowdown in construction resulting from high interest rates and now the effects of Trump’s tariffs have caused a downturn on construction employment. Shortage of jobs is currently a bigger problem in construction than shortage of workers.
Canada already has a very effective program of interprovincial mobility for skilled trades workers, called the Red Seal Certified tradespeople write an exam and document their on-the-job experience to receive Red Seal credentials, which then allow them to work in any province without additional certification. (Quebec has a separate but similar program.)
Claims by business lobbyists (such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business representative also interviewed by Mr. Galloway) that government ‘red tape’ has created a labour shortage are false. The main reason some businesses face problems recruiting and retaining skilled workers is their stubborn refusal to offer better wages and conditions. The CFIB’s own data suggests that for 57% of their members, the biggest problem in recruiting labour is a ‘disconnect’ between potential employees’ salary expectations, and the employers’ willingness to pay.

As Canada embarks on this historic building boom, it is vital that apprenticeship and qualification standards for skilled trades workers be strengthened, to ensure the work is performed safely (for both workers and the public) and to the highest standards. That means expanding the system of skilled trades certifications to include new skills (like solar and wind power installation, and advanced energy-efficient construction techniques); expanding public support for vocational colleges, apprentices, and work placements; and making publicly-funded investment projects contingent on strong labour standards (including prevailing wages, employment equity, and union representation).

Please listen to the full interview on CBC’s The Current here.

The post Supporting Skilled Trades Labour Supply as Canada Embarks on Historic Building Boom appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Media and Video Coverage of New PowerShare Report: “Bargaining Tech”

Jim Stanford — Wed, 14 Jul 2021 18:22:44 +0000

The Centre for Future Work recently released the third major paper in its PowerShare project, titled “Bargaining Tech: Strategies for Shaping Technological Change to Benefit Workers,” by Jim Stanford and Kathy Bennett.

The report was launched with a special webinar, held in conjunction with the recent (online) convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The webinar featured presentations by the authors, who were joined by two Canadian union leaders who have confronted the challenges of new technology with innovative collective bargaining strategies: Jan Simpson, National President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and Bob Dhaliwal, Secretary-Treasurer of ILWU-Canada (representing longshore workers and other transportation and logistics industries). The webinar was chaired by Barbara Byers, former Secretary-treasurer of the CLC.

Here is a one-hour video with highlights from the webinar; it is a useful educational resource for unions and other groups campaigning around technology and workplace issues.

Written versions of remarks from Jan Simpson and Bob Dhaliwal are also available:

Their experiences on how to educate and mobilize union members to negotiate better protections against harmful effects of technological change, and ensure that workers share in the upside of new technology, are crucial input for other unions and other advocates working for a more equal and inclusive high-tech future. Their specific case studies are included among 300 other examples of technology-related collective agreement language negotiated by Canadian unions in the detailed Appendix tables in the full report.

The launch of the new PowerShare report was also featured in several media outlets, including:

Feature story in the National Post.
An in-depth cover story dealing with technology and workers’ voice in Our Times, Canada’s labour magazine.
Feature radio interview on The Pulse.
Radio debate and national call-in show on the Evan Solomon show.
A video panel on technology and the future of work with journalist Kevin Carmichael of the National Post.

Jim Stanford also wrote about the main themes of the paper in this commentary article in the National Post.

The post Media and Video Coverage of New PowerShare Report: “Bargaining Tech” appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs

Jim Stanford — Wed, 02 Jun 2021 15:14:12 +0000

We are constantly told that the world of work is being turned upside down by ‘technology’: some faceless, anonymous, uncontrollable force that is somehow beyond human control. There’s no point resisting this exogenous, omnipresent force. The best thing to do is get with the program… and learn how to program! Acquiring the right skills (usually assumed to be STEM or computer skills) is the best way to protect yourself in this brave new high-tech future.

But what if technology isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? And what if you invest in learning the current hot coding language, only to see it replaced by something totally different as soon as you graduate?

In this 30-minute video, Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Dr. Jim Stanford takes on several myths related to technology and jobs.

He argues that technology is neither exogenous nor neutral: innovation reflects the priorities (and the power) of those who have the resources to pay for it. By some indicators, jobs are becoming less technology-intensive — and this is undermining job security and living standards. Finally, we need a more holistic and democratic approach to skills and training: one that respects the all-round interests of workers as human beings (not just ‘producers’), and accepts that skills alone are no guarantee of decent, fair jobs in the future.

Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs | Dr Jim Stanford

(Video refers to some economic data for Australia, but the arguments are very applicable to Canada.)

The post Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Lack of Foresight, not Lack of Skills, is the Problem

Jim Stanford — Fri, 17 Apr 2020 02:04:54 +0000

Training and skills are often held up as a ‘silver bullet’ for supporting transition and adjustment as the labour market changes. But is it true that workers lack the skills needed in the future economy? And will more training ensure they get jobs that actually use their skills?

In this commentary originally published in the Toronto Star, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford tackles some of the myths about training and jobs, and challenges employers to be more pro-active in developing skilled workforces.

Employers Complain about a ‘Skills Gap’ in Canada. But Employers are Part of the Problem.

With advances in technology remaking many jobs and industries, it’s not surprising so much attention has focused on improving the skills of Canadian workers. The hope is that by investing in job-relevant training, workers displaced by new technologies will quickly find new, better jobs – and the productivity of the whole economy will rise accordingly.

Of course, investing in better education at all levels (from early child education right through lifelong adult learning) generates huge economic gains. But the common assumption that a lack of skills is the bottleneck holding back economic success, and that training is a silver bullet for dealing with new technology, is wrong.

It’s time to revisit some common myths about Canada’s so-called “skills gap.”

First, is our skills base really so inadequate? Actually, Canadian workers are better educated than ever – most of all our youngest cohort. The Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation reports that 58% of Canadian workers in 2018 held a tertiary qualification. That’s the best in the world. In fact, millions of skilled Canadians don’t get to use their skills at work. A shortage of jobs where they can apply those qualifications is the bigger brake on growth.

Second, many policy-makers seem to believe that producing skilled workers, of its own accord, will somehow create the jobs that use those skills. It’s a “Field of Dreams” approach: if we train them, jobs will come. But we need just as much emphasis on creating high-quality skills-intensive jobs (nurturing dynamic, high-tech industries like advanced manufacturing, information technology, and specialized health and education services), to create openings for all those well-trained graduates.

Perhaps the loudest skills myth is the never-ending complaint from employers that they just can’t find qualified workers. This is invariably followed by demands that government spend more money to train job-ready graduates, with just the right skills that business wants right now.

Once upon a time, employers did their own on-the-job training. They taught job-specific knowledge and experience, supported workers in gaining more qualifications, and funded multi-year apprenticeships. A skilled workforce was seen as a valuable asset, critical to the long-run viability of the business. And companies invested in that asset accordingly.

That far-sighted approach to workforce development has been a casualty of the modern, just-in-time labour market. Employers prefer to hire and fire workers in synch with short-term fluctuations in sales. For gig workers, that insecurity occurs instantaneously. And job security isn’t much better for millions of others on temporary, labour hire, or contingent contracts. Why invest in job-specific skills, when you don’t know if you’ll be working next week – let alone next year?

Employers have also been spoiled by many years of a buyer’s market. Labour market conditions were generally weak over most of the last generation: with high unemployment and underemployment, and a permanent pool of hungry workers eager for any opportunity. Employers could advertise a job one day, and have a whole stack of qualified applications on their desk the next. In that environment, employers came to expect tailoured qualifications and experience from their applicants. They forgot that job-specific skills should be nurtured within the workplace. Statistical studies have confirmed that employers have higher expectations of applicants when unemployment is higher.

But now the labour market has tightened (with unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s), and that lazy approach to skills doesn’t work anymore. It’s time for employers to rediscover the value of investing in their own training programs. Government must play a role, of course, but by prodding employers to do a better job – rather than letting them off the hook entirely.

For example, colleges and universities can work with employers to implement more job placement and co-op programs, which are proven to improve graduate employability. And aggressive training plans should be a core feature of any government-supported industrial programs, technology grants, or infrastructure projects.

The ultimate responsibility of employers to invest in their own workers can be reaffirmed through fiscal levers. With a training levy, all employers would contribute to workforce training with a premium on eligible wages (including what they pay to contractors). Firms which undertake their own appropriate training and apprenticeships would get a full refund. But firms which free-ride on the investments of others (including by “poaching” qualified graduates from competitors) would pay into the cost of the public training system.

Canadian workers are skilled, motivated, and qualified. It’s time for employers to stop complaining about the supposed skills shortage. And time for them to start doing something about it.

The post Lack of Foresight, not Lack of Skills, is the Problem appeared first on Centre for Future Work.