The impacts of local communities as stakeholders on FIFO workers will be analysed, to

decipher whether mining companies should limit their use of FIFO workers. Through the
dissection of scholar articles and real-life news examples the economical and sociocultural
effects the FIFO workforce has on FIFO families, employees, regional communities hosting
FIFO workers as well as their economy and infrastructure will be analysed. Through
extensive research it will be deciphered that FIFO adversely effects families, individuals, and
the economy of nearby towns within regional communities. Therefore, proposing a limitation
of FIFO work. Paragraph one will discuss psychological implication of FIFO families,
paragraph two will investigate the mental and physical implications of FIFO work on an
employee, and paragraph three will illustrate the economic pressure on resources within
regional communities. Through extensive analysis and statistically evidence, it will be made
apparent that the use of FIFO workforces should be restricted.

The Fly-in Fly-out (FIFO) workforce can put undue stress on families, partners, and children
triggering Phycological implications due to extended lengths of partner/parent absenteeism.
The style of work required as a FIFO worker involves long and repeated lengths of separation
from families and home. This extended length of workers absenteeism suggests recurring
disruptions between families, resulting in partners having to fulfil extra domestic and parental
obligations, putting added pressure on themselves (Kwasnicka et al., 2022) According to the
Work-Family conflict theory (Greenhaus & Beautell, 1985) any obligations that affects one’s
time involvement strain, or behaviour within one role can cause conflicts within another role.
In relation to FIFO workers extensive time spent away from family the Time-Based Conflict
sector within the Work-family conflict theory is extremely prevalent. It involves the concept
of time pressure associated with commitments in one role making it psychically
unmanageable to fulfil the expectations surfacing from another role (Greenhaus & Beautell,
1985); frequent in FIFO workers being forced to put most of their time into their work, and
little into their personal lives. The adverse impacts on FIFO partners can be compared to that
of an Australian military partner, both facing similar conditions in connection to extended
lengths of spouse absenteeism. ‘At home’ partners have reported that adjusting to such
lifestyle is challenging, resulting in disruptions to social life, loneliness, and anxiety during
the absence of their partner (Kaczmarek & Sibel, 2008). ‘Stay at home’ parents have
experienced behavioural problems, amplified levels of bullying, isolation and general
confusion within their children (Meredith et al., 2014), due to their FIFO partners absence.
“The ‘at home’ partners found childcare, role transitions and communication difficult and
35% of the 120 mothers in the study reported that their children were more difficult while the
children’s father was away” (Kaczmarek & Sibel, 2008)

ABC News journalist Megan Mackander interviewed Debbie Russo, a mother of three
married to a FIFO worker. “you are either made for it or not, and those goes for your husband
too” Mrs Russo said. Mrs Russo being one of the more fortunate families found that the FIFO
lifestyle brought her family closer together however “it [can] either tear [families] apart or
bring [them] closer together”. Mrs Russo acknowledged that “it’s hard work” and that
“relationships can suffer with [such] lifestyle but relationships, if not maintained right, will
fail…” (Mackander, 2016). Ultimately, the mental and physical strain that a FIFO lifestyle
can put on families, partners in particular is evident. Being separated from one’s partner for
extended lengths of time, with the pressure of taking on both the individual, and partners role
whilst absent is intense; frequently unmanageable.

Being part of the FIFO workforce can come at a mental cost, putting the psychological health
of its employees at risk. FIFO workers have reported feelings of isolation when asked in
interviews, due to extensive lengths of time being separated from family and friends, missing
out on important family events, such as their children’s birthdays, as well as camp life not
supporting meaningful connections and social opportunities (“impact of FIFO work
arrangements,” 2018). In a study conducted by the Centre for Transformative Work Design
“one third of FIFO workers (33%) reported experiencing “high” or “very high” psychological
distress”, and general statistics on the FIFO workforce concluded that employees are in an “at
risk” group in terms of mental health and suicide placement (“impact of FIFO work
arrangements,” 2018). One employee explained that “you don’t create friends in that sort of
environment, [and that its] very isolationist…they move you around camp…crammed
quarters, long workers hours…by the end of that day, you don’t really make friends…so
there’s no social life, no interactions” (“impact of FIFO work arrangements,” 2018). Isolation
and particularly fatigue has led to substance abuse among many FIFO workers. Employees
have limited leisure time, long work hours that are often night shifts. Stress and exhaustion
have the potential to cause fatigue related accidents, such as falling asleep behind the wheel;
this is believed to be the key cause of substance abuse, essentially attempting to mitigate the
adverse effects of falling asleep whilst on shift (Clifford, 2009).
Although there is limited evidence in Academic reports due to the speculations of under
reported drug use as it is a sensitive occupational subject (Clifford, 2009) there are many
news articles in which retired FIFO staff have given journalists an insight into the truths of
substance abuse within such a workforce. An ABC article published by Caitlyn Gribbin
uncovers the drug and alcohol abuse within the mining industry, particularly amongst FIFO
workers. One anonymous employee admitted to some of his fellow employees having a
“quick bong, or shot of amphetamines [whilst at work”] (Gribbin, 2013). Mental Illness
Fellowship of Queensland CEO Tony Stevenson also wrote published an article on the same
topic, stating that anecdotal trends indicate that works take drugs that easily leave their
system before being tested by their workplace (Stevenson, 2016) shedding light as to why
there is so little reliable evidence and statistics on the consumption of illicit substances
amongst FIFO workers.

The economic pressures placed on resources, infrastructure and communities within FIFO
location has caused serious ramifications due to an influx in population into regional
communities. It is estimated that as of 2015 there were approximately 150,000 – 200,000
FIFO employees, the majority transferred to regional areas within Western Australia,
Queensland and South Australia (Langdon et al., 2016). Concerns have been raised in relation
to pressure on infrastructure and strain on local resource. Local governments urge to reduce
the use of FIFO workers, as local resources cannot cope with the rapid growing population of
their small towns (Langdon et al., 2016). Emergency services, roads, housing, community
buildings and recreational facilities simply cannot keep up with the prompt influx of people
requiring use of such facilities. The QUT study surveyed 559 residents and FIFO workers
from the Bowen Basin region, with 55% to 79% of the respondents stating FIFO based
mining negatively impacted on housing availability, crime and justice, community safety,
lifestyle, and local infrastructure (“Impact of Fly-In Fly-Out Drive-In”, 2012). There is a
reduced trust between local residents and FIFO workers, as residents are put under immense
pressure to accommodate for housing and accommodation, as well as recreational facilities
with the expectation to produce such demands at a low cost (Langdon et al., 2016). Societies
identity within these regional cities has changed due to increased temporary residents (FIFO
employees) moving into once family-like communities. It is reported that FIFO workers limit
their participation of community activities, therefore altering the atmosphere and overall
wellbeing of the local population (“Impact of Fly-In Fly-Out Drive-In”, 2012). By reducing
the employment rate of FIFO workers, and instead employing more staff from the regional
communities hosting FIFO workers, stress on resources, infrastructure and the decline in
social identity could be reduced; creating a more hospitable environment for locals within the
communities, and existing FIFO employees.

In ‘WA today’ Courtney Trenwith published an article on the overwhelming effects FIFO
mining projects are having on regional communities. in an interview conducted with
professor Carrington, it was aforementioned that “[the FIFO mining industry] disrupts the
natural equilibrium of region cities...[as] they have dense social networks…[known as] social
capital,… [when] very large groups of strangers…mostly men [arrive] it disrupts the whole
equilibrium of how that community function” (Trenwith, 2011). Carrington also found that
non-residents were spending less than expected, disregarding the increased revenue made on
alcohol and fuel (Trenwith, 2011). Overall Trenwith concluded that the influx of FIFO
workers was in no way benefiting local communities, more so destroying them.

The FIFO workforce is triggering adverse effects within the mental health and physical health
of individuals, families, and the regional economy. Studies have linked the FIFO workforce
to exasperating stress, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse amongst workers and their families, in
addition to disrupting the natural social and communal nature of regional communities. This
is causing suicide rates to surge amongst employees, broken families, and local members of
the community moving to regional town unaffected by the FIFO workforce. As completely
abolishing FIFO mining is not currently a viable option, mining companies should aim reduce
the use of the FIFO workforce, and in its place actively seek out individuals already living in
nearby FIFO locations. This would in turn reduce many, if not all of the issues discussed
above.
 REFERENCES

Albrecht, S. L., & Anglim, J. (2020). Employee engagement and emotional exhaustion of fly-in-fly-

out workers: A diary study. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 66–75.

Asare, B. Y.-A., Kwasnicka, D., Robinson, S., & Powell , D. (2022). Health and related behaviours

of partners of fly-in fly-out workers in Australia: a cross-sectional study. Community, Work

& Family .

Clifford, S. (2009). The Effects of Fly-in/Fly-out Commute Arrangements and Extended Working

Hours on the Stress, Lifestyle, Relationship and Health Characteristics of Western Australian

Mining Employees and their Partners: REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS. School of

Anatomy and Human Biology The University of Western Australia.

Greenhouse, J. H., & Beautell, N. J. (1985). Sources of Conflict between work and Family

Roles [Review of Sources of Conflict between work and Family Roles ]. 10(1), 76–88.

Academy of Management .

Gribbin, C. (2013a, March 13). Mine workers speak out over a culture of drug use in FIFO

camps. ABC News.

Kaczmarek, E. A., & Sibbel, A. M. (2008). The psychosocial well-being of children from Australian

military and fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) mining families. Community, Work & Family, 11(3), 297-

312.
Langdon, R., Biggs, H., & Rowland, B. (2016, January 15). Australian fly-in, fly-out operations:

Impacts on communities, safety, workers and their families [Review of Australian fly-in, fly-

out operations: Impacts on communities, safety, workers and their families]. Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Mackander, M. (2016, July 22). FIFO parents overcoming family struggles in ever-changing

industry. ABC News

Meredith, V., Rush, P., & Robinson, E. (2014). Fly-in y-out workforce practices in Australia The

effects on children and family relationships. Australian Government Australian Institute of

Family Studies Child Family Community Australia.

n,d. (2012). Scoping Study IMPACT OF FLY-IN FLY-OUT/ DRIVE-IN DRIVE-OUT WORK

PRACTICES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Australian Centre of Excellence for Local

Government.

n,d. (2018, September). Impact of FIFO work arrangements on the mental health and wellbeing of

FIFO workers. Centre for Transformative Work Design.

Stevenson , T. (2016, May 10). A FIFO Addiction. Australasian Mine Safety Journal.

Trenwith, C. (2011, June 21). FIFO workers destroy regional communities: expert. WA Today

‌
‌