Workers' perceptions of FIFO work in North Queensland, Australia.

• Author: Blackman, Anna
• Position: Contributed Article - Fly-in fly-out - Report

Abstract

The impact of the fly-in fly-out (FIFO) lifestyle on the psychosocial and emotional well-being of the workers and their families has been a topic of discussion in local media, forums, and research, with mixed findings. In addition, there are reports that the communities that carry the increased presence of nonresident workers suffer erosion of social, human, economic, institutional, and environmental capital. This study outlines the positive effects of a FIFO lifestyle and discusses the results from a survey conducted by the authors on North Queensland FIFO workers. In particular, the demography of the FIFO workforce in North Queensland, workers' perceptions of FIFO work, and their perceptions of the impacts on social interaction for FIFO workers. The article closes with a brief outline of future research areas.

1. Introduction

   Fly-in Fly-out (FI FO) is a term used to describe a workforce that commutes by plane between a worker's point of permanent residence and their place of employment, most commonly in the oil and mining industries. The remote locations of resource-extraction sites prevent workers from returning to their place of residence at the end of a shift; thus, FIFO commuters typically spend extended periods on a cyclic rostered basis as non-resident workers (NRWs) in a resource community (Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia 2005, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia (HRSCRA) 2013). In Australia, common rosters include two weeks on and one week off (14:7 roster), nine days on and five days off (9:5 roster), and six days on and four days off (6:4 roster). For some, periods away from home may extend for as long as 21 days (Heiler, Pickersgill and Briggs 2000). Where sites are extremely remote and cost of travel is high, rosters may be as long as one month on (followed by one month off). The FIFO lifestyle thus involves unique stresses not experienced by non-FIFO families. The impact of the FIFO lifestyle on the psychosocial and emotional well-being of the workers and their families has been a topic of discussion in local media, forums, and research, with mixed findings. In addition, there are reports that the communities that carry the increased presence of NRWs 'suffer erosion of social, human, economic, institutional and environmental capital' (McIntosh 2012, p. 336). This article seeks to shed light on the debate and identify areas needing further investigation.

   For the purpose of this article the parameters of the discussion are limited to two-parent families (biological or step families) with or without children living at home. The implications for single parents are not covered, as a FIFO lifestyle is deemed incompatible with single parenting (CFMEU 2011). The impact on FIFO women is also excluded from discussion, as they are largely underrepresented in the workforce (Costa 2006, Morrissey 2011).

   The article commences with a brief outline of the origins and growth of the FIFO workforce, followed by some of the approaches used when investigating the social impacts of the FIFO lifestyle. The adverse impacts of FIFO on resource communities, source communities, FIFO workers, and families (children and mothers, or partners) are presented with some discussion on mitigating factors. The positive effects of a FIFO lifestyle are outlined and the results from a survey conducted by the authors on North Queensland FIFO workers are discussed. In particular, the demography of the FIFO workforce in North Queensland, what worker perceptions are of FIFO work, and their perceptions of impacts on social interaction for FI FO workers are presented. The article closes with a brief outline of future research areas.

   1.1 The global origins of FIFO and growth of FIFO in Australia

   Long-distance commuting for mine work is not new in Australia, with the impact on workers noted as early as 1937 when it was reported that miners were often left 'disillusioned' when separated from their families for prolonged periods (The Cairns Post January 61937, p. 2). However, FIFO as a workforce model was first implemented in the 1950s in the Gulf of Mexico's off-shore oil sector, as permanent off-shore settlements were not possible (Storey 2001). Similarly, in Australia, FIFO developed around onshore and off-shore oil rigs in the 1960s. FIFO grew as a model in the remote resource sector, and by the 1980s represented 'a significant proportion 'of the remote resource-sector workforce in Australia (HRSCRA2013, Storey 2001). Growth in the FIFO workforce was largely driven by more cost-effective transport options and improved safety in air-travel. Further, over the past decade as coal and oil prices have risen markedly in response to increasing demand and increased mining activity, further growth in the FIFO workforce resulted (Carrington and Pereira 2011, Petkova et al. 2009). In addition, the FIFO model has enabled the sector to attract a more highly qualified labour force whose families prefer the services and lifestyle offered by metropolitan areas (Storey 2001).

   Official estimates of the size of the FIFO mining workforce in Australia are substantially underestimated, as data collected on mining workers do not include workers engaged in construction, surveying, transportation, processing, and maintenance, which are largely contracted by supply companies on a FIFO basis. A conservative estimate of the number of FIFO workers in the Australian mining industry in July 2011 was placed at around 200,000 (McIntosh 2012). It is estimated that an additional 70,000 employees are needed to ensure continued growth in the industry (Lowry, Molloy and Tan 2006). To meet this need, appropriate recruitment and retention strategies are vital; hence, the need for a sustainable FIFO workforce. Also, there is some indication that workers may remain in the mining sector, as the FIFO model enables them to move between companies without having to relocate their families. These factors suggest that the FIFO model is a longterm option for the extractive industries and, as such, the social impacts of FIFO are worthy of exploration.

   1.2 Approaches to investigating the social impacts of FIFO and the development of theoretical concepts: Research into the social dimension of mining

   Most research into the social dimension of mining is conducted using a social impact assessment (SIA) approach. SIAs are usually conducted prior to the commencement of large projects in order to analyse, predict, and mitigate the social consequences of natural-resource development, as well as being used to monitor ongoing impacts once a project has commenced (Petkova et al. 2009, Vanclay 2003). SIAs provide a framework for assessing' all impacts on humans and on all the ways in which people and communities interact with socio-cultural, economic and biophysical surroundings'(Vanclay 2003, p. 7).

   Given that most case studies into the social impacts of mining are site-specific with limited application outside their context, researchers have highlighted the need for studies that contribute to the theoretical and conceptual framework of the discipline (Solomon et al. 2008, Taylor et al. 2003). According to Tonts et al. (2012, p. 298), research into the socioeconomic performance of resource economies 'highlights the importance of the combination of macro-economic forces, local company structures, geographical setting, social structure and dynamics, and the characteristics of the resource itself in shaping local development trajectories and socioeconomic well-being'.

   1.3 Adverse effects of a FIFO workforce on resource communities

   The growth of the FI FO workforce has led to a shift away from the traditional approach of developing and operating purpose-built towns at the site of the resource extraction. While towns located close to resource-extraction sites support a permanent population, they also host a large 'shadow population' of FIFO workers. This dichotomous population has led to a lack of community identity and social cohesion, with workers' involvement in community activities limited by their long shift hours. In addition, the influx of FIFO workers has brought with it real and perceived declines in safety and equality. The towns are thus marked by an 'us' versus 'them' divide (HRSCRA 2013, McIntosh 2012), with division and social tensions frequently fuelled by media reports (Taylor and Simmonds 2009, Torkington 2010).

   The extent of social impacts, however, varies between resource communities (Solomon et al. 2008, Taylor et al. 2003). For example in the Bowen Basin, Queensland, the social impacts were predominantly determined by the size of the non-resident workforce in the resource community and the number of coal mines located nearby (Petkova et al. 2009). Social impacts are complex. Lockie et al. (2009) report that the negative social impacts associated with the Queensland Coppabella coal mine, 140 kilometres south-west of Mackay, were associated with residents' unmet expectations, rather than with the actual social situation. Social impacts extend beyond the FIFO and non-mine sectors in resource towns, to the minority of mine workers who opt to reside with their partners and families in small resource towns (rather than adopt the FIFO lifestyle; cf Allan 2011, Collis 1999). Personal impacts of the FIFO lifestyle are discussed in a later section. Similarly, health and safety concerns have been raised over the road-accident toll associated, in particular, with drive-in drive-out long-distance commuters to the mines. Other health concerns relate to the paucity of local healthcare services in resource towns (HRSCRA 2013).

   Besides the social tensions, the expected positive economic impacts of mining, such as economic growth and diversification, largely bypass the resource communities--a phenomenon described by Houghton (1993) and Storey (2001) as the 'fly-over' effect. The economic benefits largely flow to metropolitan...