Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Hanson's avatar

I read your post on labour shortages in construction (In Australia as I understand it), well I have one request, don’t go trying to nick what little skilled labour we have in the UK. We can’t afford to part with any of it.

In fact a report by one of the Great and the Good of the building world came out the other year saying that the average age of operatives (tradies to you) was 58. Young people simply don’t want to work on building sites. Here in the UK part of that is about our weather (have you heard about British weather?) No-one wants to spend their days on muddy building sites with toilets that are cleaned every week if they are lucky, and no on -site catering, so operatives end up buying fatty pastries from Service stations or mini-markets on their way to work.

True, Health & Safety has improved immensely in the last few years. Here we still have an industry that is to coin a phrase; “sub-contractorised to death” Main Contractors, and large house builders (developers) barely employ anyone. On site their direct employees will be Site Manager, Finishing foreman, and one or maybe two labourers whose main job is sweeping up round the site portacabin and locking the gates at night. They are ably assisted by one or two Quantity Surveyors, whose job is to screw as much money out of the client (in contractors) while simultaneously preventing the subcontracting firms from doing the same to the main contractor or developer.

The sub-contractors avoid employing too much direct labour by means of using labour agencies or employing “self-employed” tradesmen. The whole industry is a race to the bottom in terms of cost, and consequently in terms of build quality.

For contractors, this makes sense of a kind, because they typically pay the sub-contractors a week after they receive payment from the employer. Thus, their only need for working capital is to pay their head office and site staff, sub-contractors bear the burden of the working capital for the actual works itself. This means we have very thinly capitalised “main contractors” who are usually short-lived as a small number of projects turning loss-making soon absorbs all their meagre capital.

Of course, for building homes for sale this model actually makes no sense whatsoever, the developer doesn’t get monthly stage payment from the homebuyers. (Well in France they do, but that’s a whole different ball game). So not developing their own labour force, and thus their own workforce’s skills is presumably because they actually like producing sub-standard, defect riddled homes. There is simply no cash-flow of capital utilisation benefit to them.

Building homes off site doesn’t generally work. Even in Japan, where the likes of Toyota have got into the factory-built homes business they can’t compete on cost. Europe has some superb off-site manufactured homes firms notably Huff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huf_Haus . There may be a middle way, if the highly serviced elements of a house could be built off-site and wrapped around with walls / floor onsite, that might work.

However, I believe that we will not start making an impact on this problem until we reform the whole industry, persuade some of the best sun-contractors to work in joint ventures and put the main contractors out of business or make them up their game, particularly in how their employees (and they will need to be employees) are treated, in terms of continuity of employment, sick pay, training, site welfare facilities, pensions, and most fundamentally; respect.

Expand full comment
Andrea Finno's avatar

Can confirm. Would jump into a trade if there was a smooth way for a 46 year old to do that.

Edit: Also welcome back! I'll let all my friends know to not read this latest post.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts