FIFO workforce trouble

Sept. 24, 2018
In recent years, many oil and gas companies have opted to utilize a fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) workforce model in hopes of curtailing costs, increasing flexibility in meeting labor needs, and weathering the industry’s boom-bust cycles.

In recent years, many oil and gas companies have opted to utilize a fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) workforce model in hopes of curtailing costs, increasing flexibility in meeting labor needs, and weathering the industry’s boom-bust cycles.

In a recent study, scientists have discovered that FIFO workers in Fort McMurray, Alta., may have a negative impact on the community they temporarily occupy.

The study—Transiency, fly-in-fly-out workers, and sustainability: Perceptions from within a resource-based community—was published in WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment by a group of researchers at the University of Alberta’s Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences.

“The crux of the matter?” the study poses—Not enough options to get FIFO workers involved in the community.

The primary findings highlight that while it is essential having access to a robust workforce, industry’s use of FIFO workers impacts the local community in several negative ways. The study also details how residents of Fort McMurray and surrounding areas perceive the FIFO workers themselves.

“The reliance on FIFO workers has grown in the last few decades, and our understanding of how that model affects the surrounding community is lacking,” explained Leith Deacon, assistant professor in the urban planning program and principal investigator in the Sustainable Community Planning Development project.

“This research is trying to illustrate local experiences of the effects of a relatively new employment model,” Deacon said.

Impacts

First, the study found that the use of FIFO workers “not only reduces the interaction that employees have with the nearby community but alters their perception of that community.”

“They aren’t engaged,” Deacon said. “They come in, they work, and they return home. They’re not part of a community league, and they haven’t joined a gym.”

Second, the study found that “FIFO workers access local infrastructure (e.g. healthcare) but do not support further development through taxes and discretionary income.”

And third, the “transiency” nature of FIFO workers “affects place-attachment and long-term sustainability of the region.”

Deacon said, “If a person isn’t interacting with the community, their ability to develop attachment to that community is diminished. There is no meaningful way for FIFO workers to develop this attachment—especially if you take a bus from your residence to site every day. Your transportation and food are provided. You don’t go to a coffee shop or a grocery store.”

The study said, “This research contributes to existing literature on resource-based communities, sustainable urban development, and FIFO employment through use of a Canadian case-study that illustrates local experiences of the impacts of a relatively new employment model that has the potential to significantly impact resource-based communities.”

Further study

A follow-up study by Deacon’s master’s student Trina Lamanes investigated recreation and leisure opportunities as a mechanism for getting FIFO workers engaged and highlighted many ways to improve, including longer opening hours and offering child care.

While only 25 people were interviewed for this particular study, Deacon says he has interviewed about 45-50 people as a part of the broader, ongoing project.

A total of 180 people have been interviewed in resource communities in Newfoundland, Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories.

The study is available for download at https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/226/36282.