Tony, FIFO can lead to suicide as many cases have shown.

But in response to your comments I have had another look at one of the sources of information for the article, the WA Government’s Final Report into “The impact of FIFO work practices on mental health”. The report supports your contention that the suicide rate for young FIFO workers is not greatly different from that of the non-FIFO worker:

“Finding 3 Page 16
Given the difficulties of determining a reliable figure for FIFO suicide rates, and of determining a suitable state‐wide rate, the Committee maintains it is not helpful to draw conclusions that the FIFO suicide rate is no higher than the general community.

Finding 4 Page 19
Research suggests that the prevalence rate of mental health problems amongst the FIFO workforce could be approximately 30 per cent, significantly higher than the national average of 20 per cent.” (page ix)

In some ways FIFO work structures are unhealthy and it seems that we have reached a point where we accept recruitment and psychologically profiling FIFO workers as managing the risks as far as is reasonably practicable. I am not sure that is the case. It might have been once but it might not be now. That practicability needs to be reassessed in light of the improved state of knowledge of mental health risks of FIFO workers. That state of knowledge will improve again over time and another review ill be needed. that is the nature of safety management and continual improvement.

That is one of the reasons why my article is about the need for tough questions. Once a level of reasonably practicable is achieved we accept that as the reality, the norm that cannot be questioned, but in OHS all things need to be questioned so that they can be verified or improved.

I don’t dispute your demographics and would suggest that we question whether we should be recruiting that demographic for the type of work we expect of them. My contention in the article is that we can continue with that demographic but could reduce the risk of mental health problems by going Not accepting that the FIFO work structure is the only option.

Greatly appreciate your comment, Tony.

I feel that one of the conclusions you arrive at in this article – that the FIFO organisational or industry structure leads (leads??!!) to suicide – draws a very long bow.

I’ll explain where my stance comes from. I have been engaged in FIFO and, to a lesser extent, DIDO within the Australian construction industry for close to 20 years. Most projects (some exceptions do exist) took place in areas or locations geographically removed from major population centres.

In all but one case, those projects elected to import their workforce; mainly c/- FIFO. (The sole exception was a project in Newcastle. That project’s unique structure allowed project partners and participants to draw on local labour expertise).

Throughout that there has, and continues to be, some consistent denominators. (1) The FIFO/DIDO construction workforce is overwhelmingly male. I don’t know exact figures, but believe the overall gender split would lie somewhere in the 80% male-20% female / 90%-10% ballpark. (And I’d be willing to bet large that the ratio of those ‘on the tools’ would be hovering around the 90/10 split). Also, (2), I believe the FIFO/DIDO construction workforces age distribution would be significantly skewed to the right – so, displaying a disproportionately higher number of men in the first half of their careers. (If anybody has exact figures to support (or, refute) those assertions, welcome to the discussion).

In all of this, when I consider those two factors and the number of FIFO/DIDO personnel who do, tragically, chose to take their own lives, I ask: if we took any cluster of predominantly young(ish) Westernised men, anywhere in Australia, what proportion of that (admittedly very unusual) population sample would be likely to consider suicide, or act on those thoughts? Would the answer be all that far removed from the percentage we see who happen to work FIFO/DIDO?

If the answer was ‘no’, then why conclude that it is the FIFO organisational or industry structure that is LEADING to suicide? Sure, it may be a contributor – working FIFO/DIDO may be the tipping point – but to assert that it leads to suicide could be one of those tougher questions about FIFO your article kicked things off with.