Wellbeing of workers in Australian forest, wood and paper products businesses. Summary report, June 2014

Transcription

1 Wellbeing of workers in Australian forest, wood and paper products businesses Summary report, June

2 Melinda Mylek 1 Dr Jacki Schirmer 1,2 1 Centre for Research and Action in Public Health (CeRAPH), University of Canberra 2 Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the time taken by workers in the forest, wood and paper industry to participate in this project and thank them for taking part in the survey. We also thank the many forest, wood and paper businesses, and the institutes, associations and organisations, who assisted in distributing the survey to their employees. This research was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Hobart.

3 Contents List of figures... 1 List of Tables... 1 Executive Summary... 2 Main findings... 3 General health and wellbeing... 3 Physical injury and disease... 3 Working conditions... 4 Identity... 4 External influences... 4 Other factors influencing worker wellbeing and workplace performance... 5 Concluding comments... 5 Introduction... 6 Wellbeing in the workplace... 6 Methods... 8 Results General health and wellbeing of forest industry workers Using wellbeing measures to examine associations between working in the industry and wellbeing Physical injury and disease Working conditions Workplace relationships Work-related identity External influences Other factors influencing worker wellbeing and workplace performance Discussion Conclusions HILDA acknowledgement References

4 List of figures Figure 1: General health rating (across all industry sectors) Figure 2: Happy feelings mental health screen results (for all industry sectors) Figure 3: Exposure to known risks in the workplace (for all industry sectors) Figure 4: Personal exposure to work stressors in the workplace (for all industry sectors) Figure 5: Observed work stressors in the workplace (for all industry sectors) Figure 6: Respondents views about their local community List of Tables Table 1 Respondent characteristics... 9 Table 2: Mean general health scores between industry sectors Table 3: Life satisfaction scores for study respondents Table 4 Workplace access to health checks, flu shots and counselling Table 5: Satisfaction with various working conditions Table 6 Satisfaction with workplace relationships Table 7: Workplace-related identity measures Table 8: Time in industry Table 9 External influences Table 10 Adaptive capacity and self-efficacy Table 11 Social connectedness... 41

5 Executive Summary Understanding wellbeing in the workplace is important not only to inform efforts to improve the quality of life of workers, but to increase workplace productivity, staff retention and recruitment. Wellbeing refers to a person s satisfaction with life in general, and is affected by different social, physical and psychological factors. If an individual s workplace contributes positively to their wellbeing, they are likely to have greater productivity, lower stress and absenteeism, and increased job satisfaction compared to those whose workplace does not support their wellbeing. A person s workplace influences their wellbeing not just through on-site health and safety issues, but through a range of physical and psychological aspects of their life in ways that include (but are not limited to): Physical injury and disease; Working conditions: e.g. working hours, income, employment security and work autonomy; Workplace relationships: those who feel respected, appreciated, recognised and valued, who have trusting relationships in their workplace, and who feel a sense of accomplishment in their work, will have higher wellbeing; Identity: a person s work can contribute to their sense of meaning or purpose in life, and to their self-identity; this influences their enjoyment of and satisfaction with life, and their wellbeing; External influences: e.g. pressures created by government policy changes or social conflict over the industry can affect wellbeing; and Other influences including how the workplace affects key wellbeing domains such as a person s social connectedness, self-efficacy, and overall adaptive capacity. Despite recognition of these important issues, the wellbeing of forest, wood and paper industry workers beyond their physical safety at work has received relatively little attention in Australia or internationally. This study begins to address this gap in knowledge in the Australian forest, wood and paper industry, based on a quantitative survey of workers delivered online between October 2012 and January Anyone working in jobs associated with the forest industry was invited to complete the survey. This included (i) growers/managers of forests and plantations, (ii) harvest, haulage and roading contractors, (iii) people employed in wood and paper manufacturing, and (iv) others such as consultants, people working in nurseries, people working for government departments with forestryrelated responsibilities, and silvicultural contractors (referred to as others or other workers in this report). A total of 310 valid responses were received. Most respondents were forest managers (51.2%), followed by wood and paper manufacturing workers (28.1%), contractors (12.2%) and other workers (8.6%). 2

6 Main findings General health and wellbeing Respondents health and wellbeing were examined using three measures: one measure of their (self-rated) general health, the second their life satisfaction, and the third positive mental affect (an indicator of mental health). Wood and paper manufacturing workers had lower scores on all three measures compared to workers employed in forest management, contracting or other forest industry-related jobs. Workers average self-rated general health was compared to the average of employed Australians from the HILDA 1 survey, where the average self-reported health score in 2013 was 2.40 (1 is excellent and 5 is poor ). The general health of wood and paper manufacturing workers (2.54) was lower than the Australian average, while other industry sectors rated higher than the Australian average, with those working in forest management organisations rating their general health the highest (2.04). Forest workers average life satisfaction was compared to the average of employed Australians from the HILDA survey, and the Australian population (including unemployed) as measured in the Deakin 2014 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index (AUWI) survey 2. Life satisfaction for all sectors was lower than the Australian average reported in both HILDA and the AUWI survey. 1 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, wave 11. HILDA is a large national survey conducted annually, and each year includes some forest industry workers. 2 The Deakin AUWI survey has been monitoring the wellbeing of the Australian population using the Personal Wellbeing Index since April 2001 (Cummins and Perera, 2013). Physical injury and disease A total of 11.4% of respondents had experienced a work related injury in the past 12 months, with the highest injury rates reported by wood and paper manufacturing workers (16.9%), followed by contractors (13.5%), other workers (11.5%), and forest managers (7.8%). The forest industry s injury rate for all sectors was higher than the Australian workforce average of 5.8% (Safe Work Australia, 2012). The most common work-related injuries reported were lower back injuries, strains and sprains, and cuts and open wounds, particularly to hands and fingers. Workers employed on rotating shifts had significantly higher injury rates compared to those employed on standard, nonrotating hours. When asked about access to health and wellbeing services in their workplace, a large proportion of respondents reported they could access counselling services (68.7%) and physical health checks (64.7%) at their workplace, but fewer had access to flu shots (38.2%). Workers employed in forest management businesses reported greater access to all services than those working in other industry sectors. Contracting businesses generally offered physical health checks but not counselling or flu shots, while wood and paper manufacturing workplaces were least likely to offer access to physical health checks. When workers were asked whether their workplace exposed them to injury and disease risk in the form of work-related stress, dangerous equipment, noise, or long working hours, the greatest health risk identified was work-related stress. This highlights the importance of considering broader wellbeing in addition to specific injury risk factors such as exposure to noise or risky equipment. 3

7 Working conditions Working conditions that are known to be associated with negative wellbeing outcomes, such as working hours, income, employment security and work autonomy, were examined. People who worked a rotating shift were significantly more likely to have experienced a workplace injury in the last 12 months compared to those who worked set, non-rotating hours: 37.5% who worked a rotating shift reported an injury in the last 12 months compared to 9.2% of those working set hours. This is consistent with trends in the broader workforce where shift workers have more than twice the injury rates of non-shift workers (Safe Work Australia, 2012). Almost all of those who worked a rotating shift (93.8%) were wood and paper manufacturing workers. People working in forest management workplaces were more likely to be satisfied with their income than those in other parts of the industry, while contractors were slightly more satisfied with their job autonomy and their work life balance than others. On average, workers in the wood and paper manufacturing sector were least satisfied with income, job autonomy and work-life balance. However they were on average more satisfied with their job security than forest managers or other workers. Workplace relationships Feelings of workplace accomplishment, feeling appreciated, respected, and supported in the workplace, and work culture and openness to new ideas were explored. In general, wood and paper manufacturing workers and other workers recorded lower feelings of accomplishment, appreciation, respect and support than those employed in forest management or contracting. The one exception was that those employed in forest management felt less satisfied with the extent to which people appreciate what they do compared to those working in other sectors. Those working in the other sector were least likely to feel they had support from others in the industry. Survey participants were also asked to indicate if they were a member of a forest, wood or paper industry association, organisation or management committee, in order to gain an understanding of the level of interaction and support they have within the industry. A little over half (56.4%) indicated they were a member of a forest, wood or paper industry association/organisation or management committee. The majority of these were members of (i) the Institute of Foresters Australia, (ii) the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union or (iii) Timber Communities Australia. Identity A person s work often contributes to their sense of meaning or purpose in life, and to their social identity. Workplaces that reinforce a positive identity support wellbeing by doing so. Workers in the wood and paper manufacturing sector and the other sector generally felt a lower sense of common identity, enjoyment and importance of being part of the industry compared to those employed in other types of forest, wood and paper industry jobs. External influences Worker wellbeing may also be influenced by external influences on the forest industry (meaning factors outside the workplace that affect the industry). This aspect of worker wellbeing remains relatively unexplored, but a small number of studies in the forest industry suggest external influences, such as social conflict over harvesting of forests, have potential to influence worker wellbeing. In general, forest managers and other workers were 4

8 less likely than contractors and wood and paper manufacturing workers to feel they have support or are viewed positively by the general public, and that the industry is managed fairly. Contractors were more likely than the other sectors to feel that criticisms of the industry were ill informed, and to feel a sense of pride when the industry is complimented, or to feel insulted if it is criticised. Contractors and wood/paper manufacturing workers were more likely to feel that the government manages the industry well and cares about the future of the industry, however were slightly less likely to trust policy makers to look after the best interests of the industry than those employed in forest management or other workers. Other factors influencing worker wellbeing and workplace performance While not directly driven by the workplace, other influences such as a person s ability to cope with change, their self-efficacy, and their social connectedness, all influence worker wellbeing more broadly, and a person s effectiveness in the workplace. They may also be influenced by people s experiences in the workplace. Other workers reported higher levels of adaptive capacity in general. They were most likely to feel they have transferable skills to other jobs and other industries, were most likely to adapt to changes and learn new technologies, and were most likely to feel they would cope well if they lost their job. Wood and paper manufacturing workers and other workers generally reported lower levels of general self-efficacy (meaning their confidence in their own ability to achieve what they want to in life). Those working in forest management workplaces and other workers were less likely to feel strongly connected to their communities, however those working in forest management were more likely than those in other industry sectors to take part in community events or be members of community groups. Concluding comments Working in any industry can present both risks to a worker s wellbeing as well as provide opportunities to strengthen wellbeing. The Australian forest industry is no different. Our study of Australian forest industry workers has identified that workers in this industry have a higher than average rate of injury in the workplace, consistent with other available evidence for the industry, and that working a rotating shift was an important risk factor for higher injury rates. Workers employed in wood and paper product manufacturing generally reported lower wellbeing, and greater exposure to wellbeing risks in their workplace, compared to those working in other parts of the forest industry, suggesting a need to focus on improving wellbeing in this part of the forest industry in particular. Our study identified key areas that can be strengthened in order to support and build wellbeing of the forest industry workforce. Our findings are in general consistent with those of studies conducted in other industries: important ways in which a workplace can contribute to worker wellbeing are through managing working hours, fatigue and stress, together with supporting positive working conditions in the form of income, job security, and providing a workplace environment in which workers feel a sense of achievement, feel appreciated, and able to contribute to their workplace. These can also provide a buffer that may reduce the effect of external influences on worker wellbeing, such as negative perceptions of the forest industry. 5

9 Introduction Understanding wellbeing in the workplace is important not only for improving the quality of life of workers, but because it can help organisations increase productivity and improve worker retention and recruitment success. People whose workplace contributes positively to their wellbeing have demonstrably improved workplace productivity, reduced stress, lower absenteeism, and increased job satisfaction (Stiglitz, 2002; Diener and Seligman, 2004; Martin, 2005; Parks and Steelman, 2008; McCarthy et al., 2011). Worldwide, the forest, wood and paper industry is a physically dangerous one in which to work. In countries such as Australia, New Zealand and British Columbia, workers employed in logging, wood processing and forest management experience higher than average rates of physical injury (Slappendel et al., 1993; Myers and Fosbroke, 1994; Driscoll et al., 1995; Lilley et al., 2002; Bentley et al., 2002; Bentley et al., 2005; Heaney, 2007; Sarathy, 2008). However, the physical risks associated with a job are just one of many elements that are important when considering worker wellbeing. In the last 20 years understanding of workplace wellbeing has expanded to include a broader range of considerations, including both physical and psychological health, and the overall quality of life of workers (e.g. Kusel, 1996; Sparks et al., 2001; Stiglitz, 2002; Diener and Seligman, 2004; McCarthy et al., 2011). The wellbeing of forest industry workers has received relatively little attention to date. This study begins to address this knowledge gap in Australia, drawing on data collected using a quantitative survey of workers in the industry. This report explores the results of the survey. It focuses on understanding wellbeing of workers in four industry sectors: 1) forest growers or managers of forests and plantations (referred to as forest growers/managers or those employed in forest management); 2) harvesting, haulage and roading contractors (referred to as contractors); 3) wood and paper manufacturing workers; and 4) others such as consultants, people working in nurseries, people working for departments not specific to forest management, and contractors engaged in silvicultural management (referred to as others or other workers). Wellbeing in the workplace We define wellbeing as referring to a person s overall quality of life. This can be measured based on their satisfaction with life in general, and their satisfaction with different aspects of their life that affects its quality (Cummins et al., 2003; Larson et al., 2006; Costanza et al., 2007). These aspects of a person s life include their physical and mental health; social capital; self-efficacy; equality and equity of access to resources; standard of living; freedom; personal safety and security; and health of the natural environment in which they live (Cummins et al., 2003; MEA, 2003; Larson et al., 2006). While a person s workplace is not the only influence on their wellbeing, the conditions in which a person works can influence many of these aspects of wellbeing. The ways a person s workplace can influence their wellbeing include, but are not limited to: Physical injury and disease: Workplaces that expose workers to risk of injury or illness can reduce wellbeing of workers. This area is the traditional focus of worker 6

10 wellbeing initiatives in the forest industry (as well as other industries), and of associated workplace health and safety legislation. Workplace initiatives are often focussed on reducing exposure to risks as well as supporting workers to achieve good nutrition and/or exercise (Parks and Steelman, 2008; McCarthy et al., 2011). Working conditions: The conditions of a workplace, including working hours (length and type), income, job security and work autonomy influence overall wellbeing. In particular, if working conditions create stress, this stress will reduce a worker s overall wellbeing (Daniels and Guppy, 1994; Kusel, 1996; Tausig and Fenwick, 2001; Sparks et al., 2001; Stiglitz, 2002; Cotton and Hart, 2003; Diener and Seligman, 2004; McCarthy et al., 2011). Workplace relationships: Wellbeing is often higher for those who feel respected, appreciated, recognised and valued, who have trusting relationships in their workplace, and who feel a sense of accomplishment and confidence in their work (Stiglitz, 2002; Martin, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2011). Identity: A person s work can contribute to a sense of meaning or purpose in life, and to their self-identity and social identity. This in turn influences their enjoyment of and satisfaction with life, and hence their wellbeing (Ryff and Singer, 1998; Stiglitz, 2002; Martin, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2011). External influences: A person s wellbeing may also be affected by influences external to their immediate workplace which relate to the industry or activity they work in, for example external pressures created by government policy changes or social conflict over the industry. Understanding whether and how the wellbeing of workers is affected by these external influences helps improve understanding of the consequences they have for worker wellbeing. Other factors: While not principally driven by the workplace, workplace conditions can indirectly contribute to many other factors that influence worker wellbeing, and these aspects of wellbeing can in turn impact on a worker s effectiveness in the workplace. These factors include a person s adaptive capacity (i.e. their ability to cope with change), their self-efficacy (or confidence in their ability to achieve what they wish to), and their social capital (the sense of social cohesion, trust and reciprocity associated with social networks and social interaction) (Lee and Bobko, 1994; Schaubroeck and Merritt, 1997; Diener and Seligman, 2004; Martin, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2011; Berry et al., 2007; Schirmer et al., 2011). Considering how a person s workplace influences, and is influenced by these factors can support development of strategies that not only result in a workforce with higher overall wellbeing, but can foster a healthier and more productive workplace with improved staff retention. Understanding these factors can also assist with recruiting workers into the industry, and supporting an industry that can thrive under current and future conditions (Stiglitz, 2002; Diener and Seligman, 2004; Martin, 2005; Parks and Steelman, 2008; McCarthy et al., 2011). 7

11 Methods Australian forest, wood and paper industry workers were surveyed via a questionnaire delivered during October 2012 to January Anyone working in jobs associated with the Australian forest industry, including forest growers and managers of forests and plantations, contractors (e.g. harvesting, haulage or roading contractors), wood and paper manufacturing workers, and others such as consultants and those working in nurseries, were invited to complete the survey. The survey design was based on an extensive literature review on worker wellbeing. The survey was piloted by nine forest workers prior to a final revision and distribution. The survey was hosted online, and was promoted in multiple ways, including through s, notices in newsletters, and flyers handed to workers in their workplaces. The aim of the survey was to contribute to understanding how working in the forest industry may influence worker wellbeing. As the survey was conducted at a single point in time, and thus collected cross-sectional data only, the findings can point to key associations between wellbeing and different aspects of working in the forest industry, but cannot establish any cause and effect relationships. The findings reported here therefore provide an important set of insights that can inform future studies. Future work should ideally track worker wellbeing over a period of time in order to provide better insight into the effects of working in the forest industry on a worker s wellbeing. Topics included on the survey included questions about workers general health and wellbeing, exposure to physical injury and disease risk in their workplace, working conditions, workplace relationships, work-related identity, external influences on the forest industry, and other factors influencing wellbeing. A total of 310 valid responses were received. The results were explored across the four industry sectors: 1. Forest growers/managers of forests or plantations (51.2% of respondents); 2. Contractors, such as harvest, haulage and roading contractors (12.2% of respondents); 3. Wood and paper manufacturing workers (28.1% of respondents); and 4. Other workers such as consultants, people working in nurseries, people working for government departments not specific to forest management, and contractors engaged in silvicultural management (referred to as others or other workers in this report) (8.6% of respondents). Most of the individuals who responded to the survey worked in jobs that were dependent on softwood plantations (60.9%), followed by Australian native forests (48%), and hardwood plantations (33.9%). Some people worked in jobs involving more than one type of timber, so the total adds up to more than 100% (n=304). Most respondents were from New South Wales (46%) and Victoria (44.3%), the two states where most of the survey recruitment efforts were focused. The remainder of respondents were from South Australia (5%), Tasmania (2.3%), Western Australia (1%), Queensland (1%), and the Australian Capital Territory (0.3%) (n=297). The majority of respondents were male (76.7%, n=294), with a 8

12 median age range of years (n=296). A total of 71% of respondents had a post high school qualification or degree (n=293). Most respondents (83.7%) were married or in a de facto relationship (n=294), with 50.8% of respondents indicating that two or more people were financially dependent on them (n=295) and 56.3% had a house with a mortgage (n=293). A total of 52.3% of respondents indicated an individual income bracket of $65,000 to $103,999, with 20.4% earning more than this (n=279), and the remainder less. A total of 34.4% of respondents household incomes were in the $65,000 to $103,999 bracket, with the majority (52.3%) indicating their household income was more than this (n=279). Many survey respondents were the primary income earners for their household, and 55.1% indicated that 80% or more of their household income came from the forest, wood or paper industry (n=303). This is consistent with findings reported by Schirmer et al. (2013) based on analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census of Population and Housing data, and suggests the survey respondents were similar to the broader population of forest industry workers. Most respondents (59.6%) indicated that their household income was enough to cover living costs and be able to spend on some extra items such as holidays (n=292). Most respondents (63.8%) also indicated their income had increased since 2009 (n=304). In order to examine non-response bias, we compared survey respondent characteristics to known characteristics of the forest industry work force from the 2011 Australian Census of Population and Housing (Table 1).. The responses were generally typical of people working in the industry, with the exception that respondents generally had a higher level of education than is typical of the workforce as a whole; this is a common bias in surveys. Table 1 Respondent characteristics Information Respondent characteristics Australian forest industry characteristics Gender 76.7% male 23.3% female (n=294) 81.7% male 18.3% female Age Formal education Median age range: years old (n=296). Has post-school qualification: 71.1% (n=293). Median age range: years old (note that the year age group was the second most common age group) Has post-school qualification: 50.9% Univariate and bivariate summary statistics were generated using Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) Version 21. As most data were nonparametric (with ordinal scales the most common measurement used), non-parametric statistical tests were used. Spearman s rho was used to identify any correlations between variables where one or both were ordinal. Kruskal Wallis chi-square tests were used to identify significant differences between ordinal or continuous variables for two or more independent groups. 9

13 Results The results of the study are presented in the following three sections, focusing on: 1. The general health and wellbeing reported by workers in the forest, wood and paper industry 2. The different aspects of work life that can impact on wellbeing: physical health and safety; working conditions; workplace relationships; work related identity; and industry changes 3. Other factors influencing worker wellbeing and workplace performance: Coping with change; Self-efficacy; and Social connectedness. General health and wellbeing of forest industry workers Respondents were asked to rate their health and wellbeing using three measures of wellbeing: a measure of general health, a measure of life satisfaction, and the happy feelings mental health screen scale. These measures are described in more detail below. General health Respondents were asked to rate their general health on a 5 point scale of excellent (1), very good (2), good (3), fair (4) or poor (5). This measure is used internationally in health surveys as part of the SF-36 3 scale. This single item question has been shown to have high validity as a single item measure of general health (De Salvo et al., 2006). Figure 1 shows that the largest number of respondents (39%) rated their health as very good (n=287). 3 The SF-36 is a short-form health survey with 36 questions. It gives a profile of functional health and wellbeing as well as psychometrically-based physical and mental health. SF-36 is a generic measure (does not target specific age, disease, or treatment group), and therefore has been a useful tool in surveys of both general and specific populations (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992; McHorney et al, 1993; Ware et al., 1993). 10

14 Figure 1: General health rating (across all industry sectors) When people working in different sectors of the industry were compared, those working in wood and paper manufacturing reported the poorest health, followed by contractors (Table 2). When compared to the average self-reported health of employed Australians in the HILDA 4 study (mean score 2.4, n=9743), our results suggests that the health score of contractors is comparable, while the health score for the forest manager/grower and other sector is better than is typical for Australian workers, and the health score for wood and paper manufacturing workers is lower than that of the average Australian worker. The differences in health reported by people in different industry sectors were statistically significant (p=0.002, n=286). Table 2: Mean general health scores between industry sectors Industry sector Mean general health score 1 n Wood and paper manufacturing workers Harvest/haulage contractors Other workers Growers/managers All industry sectors General health was measured on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). The mean of all respondents health scores is presented in this table. Higher scores indicate poorer health. Life satisfaction Individual wellbeing can be measured through questions that ask about a person s satisfaction with different dimensions of their life. This can be done by simply asking how satisfied a person is with their life as a whole, and while this single item scale is acceptable in some circumstances, it can be less reliable than multi -item scales. Multi-item scales that tap into different dimensions of life can measure a range of elements influencing subjective 4 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, wave 11. HILDA is a large national survey conducted annually, and each year includes some forest industry workers. 11

15 wellbeing (Cummins and Weinberg, 2013; International Wellbeing Group, 2013). Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with different dimensions of life, using a subset of the dimensions included in the well-validated Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) (International Wellbeing Group, 2013). The PWI scale measures seven domains of satisfaction by asking a person how satisfied they are with their standard of living, health, what they are achieving in life, relationships, safety, community connectedness, and future security. The items are measured on a 0-10 point scale, where 0 is completely dissatisfied and 10 is completely satisfied. The mean score is calculated across the seven scales to create an overall wellbeing score. The theory behind the PWI is that of subjective wellbeing homeostasis, which suggests that each person has a set-point for personal wellbeing. In general this set point is held around 7.50, with the normal level of individual variation of the set-point being between 7.0 and 9.0 (Cummins and Perera, 2013). In this study we measured four dimensions from the PWI that consistently contribute to the overall wellbeing score and also have direct relevance to a person s workplace (Table 3). Comparisons were made with the results of the 2013 Deakin University Australian Unity Wellbeing Index (AUWI) survey results, which has been monitoring the wellbeing of the Australian population using the PWI since April 2001 (Cummins and Perera, 2013). The information obtained from the 2013 AUWI survey includes both employed and unemployed Australians. Our study, however, includes employed Australians only, and therefore further comparison was made with the HILDA survey, which includes three items from the PWI that were also used in this study: satisfaction with your life as a whole (worded as satisfaction with your life ); satisfaction with feeling part of your community; and satisfaction with your present financial situation. It is important to note that HILDA does not use the same set of satisfaction items as the PWI - while some of the items are the same, they are not identical. The HILDA survey results can be grouped into employed Australians, making the comparison more relevant to the respondents of this study (Table 3). For direct comparison with HILDA, we calculated overall wellbeing (Table 3) using the same items used in the HILDA survey: satisfaction with your life as a whole; satisfaction with feeling part of your community; and satisfaction with your present financial situation. All sectors of the forest industry reported lower overall wellbeing than the Australian workforce (reported in HILDA) and the Australian population (both employed and unemployed - reported in the AUWI 2013 survey). This suggests that forest industry workers have lower wellbeing overall than the Australian workforce. However, as the wellbeing questions asked in HILDA and the AUWI are asked in the context of a different set of survey questions to those we asked, it is also possible that the nature of the survey questions answered prior to the wellbeing question led to a priming effect in which workers responded differently to the wellbeing question than would have been the case if they had been asked the questions in the exact same way as in the HILDA or AUWI surveys. Further examination of our data suggests it is unlikely the priming effect explains all the difference, particularly as the scores for some forest industry sectors are similar to the average for the Australian working population, while the scores for others are lower. Wood and paper manufacturing workers reported the lowest satisfaction with all dimensions of their life compared to those working in other forest industry sectors, with 12

16 one exception: feeling part of the community. Satisfaction with standard of living was significantly higher for forest growers/managers compared to the other industry sectors (p=0.013, n=293), while contractors reported higher overall life satisfaction than the other industry sectors (p=0.045, n=294) (Table 3). While the differences in scores across the industry sectors appears small, it is important to understand that the normal level of variation in PWI scores for the Australian population (measured by the Deakin AUWI Survey) is typically very small. PWI ranged from 7.56 to 7.63 between 2009 and Its current value of 7.57 points remains within this narrow range of values (Cummins and Perera, 2013). 13

17 Table 3: Life satisfaction scores for study respondents Satisfaction measure Mean score All Grower/ sectors manager Contractors Wood/ paper manufacturing workers 7.03 n= n= n= n= n=80 Other workers Australian working population n=11,233 Not asked in HILDA Not asked in HILDA 6.8 n=11, n=11,233 Australian Population 2 Satisfaction with your life as a whole n= n= n= n= n=2,003 Satisfaction with your standard of living n=294 n=152 n=36 n=25 n=2,003 Satisfaction with what you are currently achieving in life 3 n=293 n=152 n=36 n=25 n=2,003 Satisfaction with feeling part of your community 3 n=294 n=152 n=36 n=25 n=2,003 Satisfaction with your present financial Not asked in situation 3 n=294 n=152 n=36 n=25 standard set of AUWI questions Overall wellbeing n=294 n=152 n=36 n=80 n=25 n=11,233 n=2,003 1 Data source from The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, wave 11.0, which is a household-based panel study beginning in 2001, collecting information about economic and subjective well-being, labour market dynamics and family dynamics (Summerfield et al., 2012). 2 Information obtained from Deakin University Australian Unity Wellbeing Index results 2012 (Cummins et al. 2012). This information includes both employed and unemployed Australians. 3 Life satisfaction items were measured on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 was completely dissatisfied, and 10 was completely satisfied. 4 Overall wellbeing was calculated by averaging the scores for the 3 items used in HILDA: Satisfaction with your life as a whole; Satisfaction with feeling part of your community; and satisfaction with your present financial situation. 14

18 Happy feelings The third measure of wellbeing examined mental health, specifically positive mental health, measured using the happy feelings scale. The happy feelings mental health scale used in the survey is in early development and not yet fully validated, but the questions are less difficult to answer than the more widely used Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10 scale) for mental health screening. The K10 scale is a scale designed to measure non-specific psychological distress, based on questions about negative emotional states (ABS 2012), whereas the happy feelings scale measures positive mental affect, in other words the prevalence of positive emotional states that are indicative of good mental health. It is not a diagnostic tool, but indicates whether, at a population level, a particular group exhibits positive mental health. Results for the happy feelings scale can be seen in Figure 2. A similar pattern to the life satisfaction scales was observed between sectors, with the highest scores (indicative of more positive mental health) reported by contractors and the lowest scores reported by wood and paper manufacturing workers. Figure 2: Happy feelings mental health screen results (for all industry sectors) Using wellbeing measures to examine associations between working in the industry and wellbeing The following sections of this report explore whether there is an association between different aspects of working in the forest industry, and the wellbeing of workers. The analysis identifies where there is a correlation (statistical association) between wellbeing and different aspects of working in the industry. It does not establish causation: we do not know if the correlations identified result from a direct relationship in which workplace conditions lead to higher or lower wellbeing, or higher or lower wellbeing cause greater/lesser satisfaction with working conditions; or if they result from indirect causative 15

19 pathways, such as a third factor or factors that influence both a worker s subjective wellbeing and their assessment of their working conditions. To explore these associations, two measures of wellbeing were used: the overall life satisfaction scale (in which each dimension of life satisfaction asked in the survey was combined to create a single scale), and the happy feelings scale (in which the five items asked about happy feelings were combined into a single scale). These measures of overall worker wellbeing are used in the analysis and presentation of results from this point forward in the report. In addition, in some sections, results of the general health single item scale are compared to working conditions to identify patterns of association. Physical injury and disease The forest industry can be physically demanding and dangerous to work in, and the physical risks of working in the industry have been the focus of a range of workplace health and safety initiatives. Survey respondents were asked a number of questions about the physical health and injury risks presented by their workplace, including whether they had experienced a work related injury in the last 12 months, whether they believed they were exposed to any of a number of specific injury and disease risks in their workplace, and whether their workplace provided access to health-related services. The forest industry s injury rate for all sectors was higher than the Australian workforce average. A total of 11.4% of survey respondents had experienced a work related injury in the past 12 months (n=308). Injury rates were highest in the wood and paper manufacturing sector (16.9%, n=83), followed by the contracting sector (13.5%, n=37), the other sector (11.5%, n=26), and the forest grower/management sector (7.8%, n=153). The average injury rate across the Australian workforce in was 5.8% (Safe Work Australia, 2012). The most common work-related injuries reported by survey respondents were lower back injuries, strains and sprains, and cuts and open wounds, particularly to hands and fingers. Respondents were also asked to indicate if they believed they were currently exposed to injury and disease risks in the form of work-related stress, dangerous equipment, noise, or long working hours. Figure 3 illustrates that the greatest health risk identified was workrelated stress, highlighting the importance of considering broader wellbeing in addition to specific injury risk factors such as exposure to noise or risky equipment. Not surprisingly, noise risk was higher in wood and paper manufacturing than other sectors of the industry (p=0.000, n=297), and risk associated with environmental protestors was higher for contractors than other industry sectors (p=0.012, n=284). In both cases, the sector in which more people reported exposure was the one in which the nature of their work was most likely to expose them to the risk (processing machinery is typically associated with noise risk, while protests often occur at forest harvesting sites during the harvest process). 16

20 Figure 3: Exposure to known risks in the workplace (for all industry sectors) Respondents were also asked if their personal exposure to work-related stress, long working hours, exhaustion or dangerous working conditions had increased in recent years, or if their workplace in general had experienced an increase (even if they hadn t personally experienced this increase). Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate that work-related stress is the factor most commonly reported to have increased. The proportion of people who reported growth in work-related stress in their workplace was highest for the forest grower/manager sector compared to the other industry sectors (p=0.019, n=299). Figure 4: Personal exposure to work stressors in the workplace (for all industry sectors) 17

21 Figure 5: Observed work stressors in the workplace (for all industry sectors) When asked about access to health and wellbeing services in their workplace, a large proportion of respondents reported that they had access to counselling services (68.7%) and physical health checks (64.7%) at their workplace, while fewer had access to flu shots (38.2%) ( Table 4). Those working for forest management organisations were more likely to report they had access to all of these services compared to those working in the other industry sectors. Contracting businesses commonly offered physical health checks, but not counselling or flu shots. Wood and paper manufacturing workplaces were least likely to offer access to physical health checks compared to the other industry sectors. Table 4 Workplace access to health checks, flu shots and counselling Health/ wellbeing services % respondents who reported having access to health/ wellbeing services All sectors Grower/ manager Contractors Wood/ paper manufacturing workers Other workers Physical health checks (such as 64.9 sun checks, mobility checks etc) (n=302) (n=84) 42.3 Flu shots 38.1 (n=302) (n=84) 50.0 Counselling (either over the phone or in person) 69.0 (n=303) (n=85)

22 Working conditions Working conditions that have been found in previous studies to influence worker wellbeing were explored as part of the study. Results relating to the workplace conditions of working hours, income, employment security, job autonomy and work-life balance are described in this section. Work hours and schedule Long or irregular work hours can negatively impact wellbeing, particularly through decreasing time spent outside of work (reduced work-life balance), as well as increased fatigue, resulting in higher risk of injury (Sparks et al., 2001;Tuasig and Fenwick, 2001; McCarthy et al., 2011). Respondents were asked various questions about the type of work schedules they maintain, their working hours and whether their jobs are permanent, and/or full time. Most respondents reported working permanent full time jobs (82.7%, n=306), on a regular daytime schedule (79.7%, n=306). Only 7.5% of respondents reported working an irregular schedule, 5.2% reported working a rotating shift and 2.3% reported working a regular evening/night shift. A total of 5.2% of respondents indicated that they worked another type of work schedule, but were not asked to elaborate (n=306). A total of 67.3% of respondents worked 40 hours or more per week (with the median hours worked being hours per week, n=306). However most respondents (68%) indicated that they would prefer to work less than 40 hours per week (with the median preferred hours being hours per week, n=306). Respondents who worked a rotating shift were significantly more likely to have experienced a workplace injury in the last 12 months, compared to those who worked set, non-rotating hours (p=0.005, n=302). A total of 37.5% of respondents who worked a rotating shift reporting an injury, compared to 9.2% of those working set hours reporting an injury. This is consistent with trends in the broader workforce where shift workers have more than twice the injury rates of non-shift workers (Safe Work Australia, 2012). The majority of those who worked a rotating shift (93.8%) worked in the wood and paper manufacturing sector, which is consistent with the high injury rates for this sector of the forest industry. Income A worker s satisfaction with their income is a key contributor to their own and their family s wellbeing, through its contribution to their standard of living, as well as the status and recognition associated with being paid an income (Kusel, 1996; Stiglitz, 2002; Diener and Seligman, 2004; McCarthy et al., 2011). Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their income. Forest growers/managers reported higher satisfaction with their income, followed by contractors, other workers, and finally workers in the wood and paper manufacturing sector, who were least satisfied with their income. Income was significantly correlated with overall life satisfaction, happy feelings and general health, where those who were more satisfied with income reported higher life satisfaction and happy feelings, and better general health (Table 5). 19

23 Job security Job security has important impacts on work related stress, job satisfaction and overall wellbeing. Lower levels of job security for example, casual jobs or fixed-term contracts have been associated with lower wellbeing, and lower work motivation (Sparks et al., 2001; Stiglitz, 2002). Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their job security, and how confident they were that they would have a job one year from now. Contractors indicated a higher level of job satisfaction than forest managers, wood and paper manufacturing workers and other workers, while wood and paper manufacturing workers were most confident they would have a job one year from now compared to the other industry sectors. Job security was significantly correlated with overall life satisfaction and happy feelings : in general, the more secure workers felt in their job, the higher the life satisfaction and happy feelings they reported. Job security was not correlated with general health (Table 5). Job autonomy Workers who feel able to control and direct their own work typically have higher job satisfaction, commitment, performance and motivation, while lower levels of control are associated with emotional distress, absenteeism and lower overall wellbeing (Daniels and Guppy, 1994; Kusel, 1996; Sparks et al., 2001). Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with the amount of control they had over decisions affecting their work. Contractors were most satisfied with their job autonomy compared to forest managers, wood and paper manufacturing workers and other workers, while wood and paper manufacturing workers recorded the lowest satisfaction with job autonomy. Job autonomy was significantly correlated with overall life satisfaction, happy feelings and general health, where those who were more satisfied with the control they had over their work reported higher life satisfaction and happy feelings, and better general health (Table 5). Work-life balance Jobs that reduce time for home or social life (often due to long or irregular working hours) can negatively impact wellbeing (Tuasig and Fenwick, 2001; McCarthy et al., 2011). Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with the balance between work life and home life. Contractors were slightly more satisfied with their work-life balance than the other industry sectors, while workers in the wood and paper manufacturing sector were least satisfied with work-life balance compared to contractors, forest managers and other workers. Work-life balance was significantly correlated with overall life satisfaction, happy feelings and general health (where in general workers who reported more positive work-life balance also reported more positive life satisfaction, happy feelings and general health) (Table 5). 20