r [}{]&lru~& c rn:IID&®©@

[

r' .

r r r r

r r

[

[

l )

Susitna Joint Venture Document Number

Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL

-. ~-?:~::x" .:-:~:;::

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO

. REVELSTOKE LABOUR FORCE SURVEY

REPORT NO. 11

FOR PERIOD JULY TO DECEMBER 1983

Revelstoke Project

March 1984

. -:·~·.r-.... , ........ ~--.. ,.-f-·--.....-·-~· .. ·--~ .. ---~-.. -----····~~-.'"'t- ·--·-·- .. -----··-- ............... -~·--~---

' . -­l

I

I

[

f

~~

[

[

I

L

l

l

'IJ

REVELSTOKE LABOUR FORCE SURVEY

CONTENTS

SUBJECT

INTRODUCTION

WORK FORCE PROFILE PROFILE

INCOME

HOUSING

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND EDUCATION

SUt·1tljARY

DIAGR!-\f1S

1 Overview of Questionnaire Target Population

2 Tota 1 Hi res by Type

FIGURES

Figure No.

1

? ·-3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Age and Sex Distribution

Number of Dependents

Geographic Location of Respondents Permanent Homes

Union Affiliation

Length of Union Membership of Respondents Residing in Revelstoke

Previous Location of Respondents Who Left a Job to Work on the Revelstoke Project

Length of Time Employees Expect to War~ on the Project

Previous Y8ar (1982) Gross Ircome {$ Thousands)

Median Gross Income and Receiving Unemployment Insurance in Previous Year by t~onths of Hire

- i ..

PAGE

1

4

14

19

24

27

PAGE

2

3

PAGE

5

6

7

9

11

12

13

15

16

0 ._' f

I ~ I

I FIGURES (Cont'd) PAGE

10 Percent of Take Home Pay Spent in

f Reve 1 stoke By· ~lorker' s Residence During Heek 18

I 11 Residence of Work Force \4h i 1 e Emp 1 oyed

on Project 20

12 Union Affiliation of Work Force by ~~ ' .

' '

I

Place of Residence During Week 21 . 13 Housing Tyre for Horker·s Who. Have Moved

(or plan to move) to Revelstoke 22

14 Cumulative Number of Visits to Revelstoke Each Heek by Respondent's Union

I Affiliation 25

r; TABLES PAGE

Table N o.

~, I ,,

I. ;I

1 ~1arital Status 4

2 Frequency and Distance Respondents Commute to Homes Outside the Revelstoke Area 8

3 1982 Gross Income of Respondents Who

I ~~ !

I

Received Unemployment Insurance or Social Assistance During the 12 Months Preceding Employment on the Revelstoke

I. Pr·oject 14

4 Union Affiliation of Respondents Who

l. Received Unemployment Insurance or Social Assistance During 12 Months Preceding Employment on the Revelstoke Project 1'7

~. 5 Number of Respondents Who Have Moved (or plan to move) to Revelstoke · 19

~~ 6 Respondents Who Anticipate Remaining in the Area Upon Project Completion 23

t 7 Plans to Visit Revelstoke 24

8 Participation in Community Activities 26

t t - i i -

;( ~-

,y

_ ..... ,T~- ·o;;;s,;= -~----~-.. --------,;-----~~--~::--.·-:· --- ... ····----·· .... -............. ~ .. -,.

1

~-

l l··t r· i I

i I ; ., ' ! !

I {

I f I ~~

I ,. I I JI.

--~-

JI

Jt

Ji.

Jl l t

Jl ji ~

~-~

~;j

TABLES (Cont'd)

9

APPENDICES

Al

A2

A3

P..4

_. t:•

Number of School Age Children of Workers Who Have Moved (or plan to move) Their Families to Revelstoke

Response Rate and Sampling Error

Geographic Locations

Expenditure Data

Questionnaire

-

- iii -

PAGE

26

I f.

I-

'

I I I I I

IJ

" c. 1-~

J ~

JJ

J.l f

INTRODUCTION

This report is designed to remain consistent with preceding reports, 11 Reve 1 stoke Labour· Force Survey: Reports 1 - 10 11

•

The total number of employees hired by Columbia Hydro Constructors for the period July to December 1983 was 927 (Diagram 1).

This number is broken down into Transfers, Re-hires and New Hires

(Diagram 2). Employee Questionnaire is not made available to Re-hires

aS by defi ni ti on they would a 1 ready have been exposed to the questionnare previously.

The re 1 evant categcry is the "Nev.J Hi res 11 of which there were 504 during this survey period. Responses were received from 250 and this questionnaire is based upon those 250 responses.

Close attention is given to the number of responses to individual questions. I~ general, when all observations are used in a percentage figure (N=250), then the fig~re is cited as a percent of 'the

sample'. When only respondents to a particular question are included,

then 'N' is given in parenthesis. All following discussion uses the

same N un 1 ess a different N is given, and a 11 observations are referenced giving N.

As in previous reports, this repor·t addresses the topic of

work force profile, incomes housing and community involvement, followed

by a summary. This report covers the period from July to December inclusive, 1983.

·~.--.. ··------ ----~-·----- ----·-·----- .... ·-:"·_-· .- -·- --··------~ ------·--.. - -------- ... -- --- ............. -----~ -~-;:-·1--- .. --.-- .. ________ .. --· -- ..... ------·------------- -...... -............... -- ·-:~ .. -

. -, . .

II ... It \ •

~ ' • • • -. J

- :0 //!!' ~ • .. .1 It

• ' ' ~ c c- " ~--- ,· -- --··· I • • _.-/' • 6

• j • 1

• 1;1 • 1111 ' - - ------"' . -------~-- --•----"-------~-

;~~)

( l j

<J

l I

1 .. , .. , I

1.1

. ;:::.

l. -~ CJ

-

~~-~-

.... ~ t~-·-;. ..... ~,~-·

----- -~- ·- --- - :::·- ... -- ·- -- ;.0. 1:. . " . .,. .:. . c- •

.-1!~.-~ ~ ~"''""--~ ~

..._

.·.-......"-•·"'- ·:w ... E!

EMPLOYEES HIRED ( N :;: 927 JULY- DEC.

1983)

f

'"---~···- ''!.~ "'-1.~--.... -~ :•911 ~ :t:;g

DIAGRP,~1 I

OVERVtE\V OF QlJESTIONAIRE TARGET POPULATION

P~CIJ·ECT LABOUR FORCE

I. SE.E DIAGRAM 2 FOR BRE.AKDO\Vf1 •

- "...,..., .. -..,..,.,~,.,.,....-· --.. .,.~~~ ..... ...,..,...._~""'"

1-----· ._, ~ ~ i~ ~ .., ..... J.ilEJII!illlj

l

-EMPLOYEES RELEASED

...

... . ,

d \)

\\:

-,1 ··: ;::

'0 .'

6

"' q._·,

I I I I I I I

IJ

Jj

J}

~ . ··~if'"'t"'. ~·'ju \'(,

~ 3

u i/\GRA~II 2 T !1 T R L II I I\ F f: B Y 1 Y P [

(JULY- 'OE(:E t'1SC R l 1 9 }j :->

fj r_, II Y U R 0 S l T r. 0 F F I L E.

11\GNSf!:"f\S 31

'

·. :· /~ .. ~-;,;-·-·~~-· -···-y,;·~·-~---.. -"'"''- ··--c .,., ·::" ""·f··· ~,~:'":···· ........... _ . ., ..... ,., . ., C"''"''""'"""""' -----··-------- ·····:·1_-.. --~-- ···-·-----~---- ____ .,., _________ ~···-------·----. ~-- ---~ .................. ., ....... ., •' -·-··---····---·----~· _______ ... , ... ~, ,_.,..... . ~

I

I

I

I

I

I

1£ u

f

I

l

-, '. '-. ,~~·· ~ :' ' >

- 4 -

WORK FORCE PROFILE

This section describes the main demographic and employment

characteristics of the new hires. Data on the personal characteristics

of the workers are provided in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2. The work

force profile seems basically very simi-lar to the profile for the nev-1

hires in Report No. 9. From the total sample, (N=250), about 99 percent of the sample are males with about seventy-four percenc of them under 45

years of age. The female fraction of the sample has remained the same

as in the last report - approximately 1% in the survey period.

About 52 percent of respondents (N=250) are married, with more than half of the sample having dependents· (61%). There was an average of 1.5 dependents per respondent (N=250).

TABLE 1: Marital Status

Single Narried Separated/Divorced Widowed Other Unspecified Total

Number

82 131

19 1

17 0

250

Percent

32.8 52.4 7.6 0.4 6.8 0.0

100.0

The geographic location of respondents' permanent homes is

shown in Figure 3 (N=250). The highest percentage of ~espondents come from the Lower Mainland, 44.4 percent, and the Thompson-~irola, 15.2 percent. Only three percent of respondents indicated that Revelstoke

was their home. Again, as in the past, some of these respondents are

probably in-migrants who have moved to Revelstoke as a result of their job on the Project. (See Appendix A-2).

1 I.' I

I I I I I I I I I If

l

I 1:

.

. , 0 -~- ··-·-· .-. .... 1 i.':i·t.·•

.;; [ i

•• < \J. fi'

··'!,·.-

35-44

L~~.!. :J FE~IALE AGE G~OUP

~U t·IALE

• !·-J ,_, P L: E 1 . :) .- ~~ E ·:. P 0 t~ C f ~~ T S C· I V c N I N f) R R E N T H E 5 [ :. . ,, : i: ·; -~· :.) d '

(5)

55-64 6!3 .l.

I I I I I

'1":1.' r 1

0

II }

'

I' 1

I ~·

ll 1; ..

! J

IJ

1: '

I· ' i

~;

~~ f

~l

":·1: "'"' ~ ... J --

' c: ... J

_. •.1

1 r• '-' --

0

- 6 -

:FIGlJRI~ 2 KU:\!DER OF DEPEKDENTS

(16.8)

(16.0) v./ I· .~·

(4.0)

(0.4)

•.I .:: ·-· 3

NUMBER OF OfPENDf~TS

,-·-·"····· --·---···-·-------..-, .... ~··-~..:;-·--· .. -···-----··-~~----· ....... - ....................... _._ ........ ·c•-· ··--····-··-.. ~ ..

l. -

I I I· I . !

! !11_;_· ~~

~J

l- r· ,) 'J -~

~ .:{ I) -i

~

J , • r· .JU ~

j

j ~

20 -!

-t I

1 -!

i

~ , i ...,

' ... , li.J

I

l i ~

( ) ,7

0 -f~ t:" ~

v f l ~l T n _,

~~ f

-{N::~~SOJ

r

'·"' 0 1 I~ r R I N Vi I H G l 1-l ;_

R '-' I~ s ~·J j.~

A A ':' •

- 7 ·-

I~IG1JRI~ 3 {;EOGIU\PHIC LOC.\TIO:\ OF THE

RESPOXDE.i\TS PER~IAKE~T IIO~IES

L K ·t 0 H

1·1 0 0 R T ~1 T f I ... N N N L R I A y r ..,.

N s 0 0 L liE A

LOCATION

·-NUMB f R 0 f f~ f S P 0 N D f ~~ 1 S C· 1 V f N I N ° ARE N THE S 1 S .

u l H f R

1 N

B

c

- f1 q Y R L 5 fJ J N C. L U C E ~{ f :"' P 0 N DE t~ T 5 l·.J I ~ H R V E I N- M I GR R T E.D I NT 0 T H f ( rJ 11 M UN I T f R E• 8 ~:~ f G d L T 0 F T H E F' IE C T •

·- R f f f R T 0 R P F· f N G l X 8- ::: F 0 f\ T H E i T I 0 N 0 F G f. 0 G R A P H I C R R f R 5 -··NGT!:. "'L .M~INL.Ft~·!O,..;" !NCLUCES \ DUVER ISLAND.

·~-----"'"'"'-~ .. - ..... ~~-..__..,.__ -~-,~.-.·-:;r:·---:·---------~-----~·-·---~~---:1----T'

l ' '· J,

''"~ \ Ill ~

a .,

(13)

~ l·lr· . '·

____ _I~.J II ' .. ,, 'l II il N 1 ,. r. -1

1 r u (

f I r

B l r f ·~

IJ

I j

I l I ! ' i

ll I il I ..

I I 1

., '

1-., ' i

r '1.

~i

l .· . i

fi! 1IJ

- 8 -

TABLE 2: Frequency and Distance Respondents Commute to Homes Outside the Reve 1 stoke Area

DISTANCE (Miles) Less More Than Than Total

Fregu~ncy 35 35-55 55-100 100 Unspecified (Percent)

Once per day 1 0 3 3 5 12 (4.8)

Once or Twice per vJeek 0 1 8 50 0 59

(23.6)

Once or Twice per t1onth 0 1 0 85 2 88

(35.2)

Uncertain or Ir-regular 0 0 0 0 0 0

(0.0)

Unspecified 1 0 0 42 48 91 (36.4)

Total 2 2 11 180 55 250 Percent (D:""8) ( o:-s) (4:""4 ) (72.0) (22:"0) (100.0}

Table 2 shows the frequency and distance respondents travel to homes outside the Revelstoke area. Almost three-quarters of the sample commute over 100 mi 1 es to their permanent homes. Only 3. 6 percent travel less than 100 miles, one way, once or twice per week. The trend of a decreasing fraction of workers commuting (in all ~ategorie~) less than 100 miles ~as ccntinued; from 24.3% in Report 7 to a current level of 6.0%.

The respondents are grouped according to union affiliation in Figure 4. The largest individual membership belongs to the Painters Union which accounts for 25 percent of respondents (N=250). However, as in the last report, the "other" category remains significant at 18% of the respondents.

, ____ ---~·-·-·---~-----·--"··--.. ,~1··.- ................. -................... ··---···-·--··~------·-· -····--·····--1 -\

I I I

F F~EOUEI ( y

~ !IJ

140 -

I f) I J -·. -

100 -

I; C:L -i

l j

.. ffi·-J ;ll ! i

i . ~.~ :i

I !

:.'ji·· I'

l j

fll }iii

~(l -

20 .

0

(4.0) II I ,, ! /_.(/ . ... /

0 El 0

T 1 l

E. E I

u >1 r~

K E F· ...

PE..• I DENCE

E. L. E c T f: I c R L

f7 / J

- 9 -

FIGURE 4 UNION AFFILIATION

I r p R t . J 0 M p N E E w N f 0 T I R T K T E E r· R C• .;J s

UNION

NON- REV El.ST Or~E

M Fl c H 1 N I c-0

T <:· i:..)

b " iJ ~"':"'='::!..,

- " G T ri t. !\ '' 1 N C L · D E. S R F . P 0 N S [ S G l V E N A S N 0 N - U N I 0 N •

p 0 u R T N I H s N E p

1 R ~ ... -

E.. r . '--

R T l

.::.• f ! f 0

R EVE L S T 0 1\ E .

-i1Ci)' rii.SD lNCi ~,.'G[ SCH1E RESPONCENTS ~H-10 HqvE IN-111GRRTE:O 1 N:O Tl:E C!:H·H·'UNIT) · - P E ~ C t ~~ T 0 i· ,. 0 T; !.. f~ E. ... r G N C E NT 3 R ~~ E C I V E ~~ 11~ r R r~ E ~~THE S L,. R S 0 V E T:: E FP-i ~ t1 -11.=.2'~0)

-

r'

r ~

I I

I il

rl·,-· fl -, i' i

'I I lmii ) ' I i

r~: n ., j l I l

~., :,.'

I ' •. i

J

~-. j

'

• I

liB: lli ' ,;J

- 10 -

Th~ number of years that respondents living in Revelstoke have belonged to their union is indicated in Figure 5. T D of the six Revelstoke respondents have belonged to their union for five or six years, \vi th the four others not speci fy·i ng the duration of their membership.

A distribution of previous job locations is given in Figure 6. As in the last report, about seven percent of the sample left another job to \vork on the Revelstoke Project. 1·1ore than half of the previous job loca 1ns were in the Lower Mainland.

Figure 7 shows the length of time the emplo}ees expect to work on the Revelstoke Project .. As in the la~t report, about two-thirds of the respondents are uncertain of the length of their employment (N=250) with most of the other respondents expecting purely short term employment here in the order of several weeks.

I I I f f\ f Q Ll F N (. Y

) .. '-u

1 8

1 17

[, .. ,. ,.

f; :

~I; !:1, 111!

~·: iiJ

16

1 'J -~

.~ . ' ;.'

11 -

FIGlTI~E 5 LENGTH OF liNlO~ MEMBEI~SHIP OF

I{E~PONDENTS RESIDING IN RE\'EL~TOKE

5-6 7-B

NJMBER Of YERRS Of UNION MEMBERSHIP

-

( 4)

f1 1

fil. II

FREQUENCY

1 c· d -

1 0 --

c: ;:)

,, r_

0

- 12 -

FIGURE 6 PREVIOL.!S LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS

WHO LEFT A JOB TO WORK ON THE H.EVELSTOKE PROJECT

. '·~ . ....... ~~~~-:

.... , •. ""~l "~;~:.;. ~~!",

··~ "· .•. .., .... "''\· '~··

"~~ ... ' ·~ -.,~t.

·., ··~·. . •' '• .

(3) (3)

(1)

0 15$~ ~ ~~--·~---------·

R s 0 L K 0 E I K • 0 1 v c A M 0 H f.. I N A T E L. M I I E R 8 A s N N s

L A T L H 0 A u R y . I K K s N s E w w D

R A p 'I~

LOCRT I 0~~

··RfSPONGENTS fN:18l/TOTRL SAMPLE (N:250J = 7.2~· ·• f~ E f E f< 1 0 A r P f N D 1 X f(- 2 F 0 R G E 0 GRAPH I C L 0 C A T I 0 N ~) • -NOT[; nl.MRJNLANO •u ALSO INCLUDES VANCnUYER ISLAND· -·{N:2SQ),

N

8 r ·-·

0

T c -.)

I 0 E

8 • c

u N

p E

F , .I

E. 0

1. I I

f .. ~ ' i .~ .. I'

~~

--

--, ..

l

I I !

I I I I;

I J,

t.

l20 :I I

1 i

~ l 0 -1 -I

·I .I

l

~~ ........ :::tU 1

I

~i •I

q,--J -" --

I .l

I

j 70 ' -j _,

~ r- n

~~ ::~~. ... -:~

-l _, " ~

SG

~ .l

I t,(. l -

-, (' J ._) -

20 ~ tO

(j

0.

(39)

- 13 -

I~ICrlJRI~ 7 LENGTH OF TIME EMPLOYEES F.XPECT

TO WORK ON THE PROJECT

(9) (7)

-----·-~ (1) (3)

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 !3+

NUMBER OF ~~EE.KS

THE NJMBER OF ~E~PONCENTS GIVEN ABOVE IN PR~ENTHES1S ra~J PLJS THOSL WHO 8NSWERED ~~NCERTA!Nwl164l EQUALS 2bO.

i.INSPEr

'I

I I I li

J I

J

,.

I I I J

J

l I

- 14 -

INCOI1E

Information on income distribution, financial assistance and anticipated expenditures in Revelstoke is presented in Figures 8 through 10 and Tables 3 and 4. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the sample's gross income in 1982, and it is quite similar in nature to that displayed in Report 10. The median gross income of the sample falls into the $20,000 to $25,000 income bracket. About 12 percent of the respondents (N=250) reporting a 1982 income are in the median class interval. About 55 percent of respondents· earned less than the upper limit of the median class interval reported here.

The mean gross income in 1983 has remained fairly constant, at about 524,000. The number of unemployment insurance recipients declined to 71% in this survey period.

TABLE 3: 1982 Gross Income of Respondents* \·Jho Received Unemp 1 oyment Insurance or Social Assistance During the 12 t·1onths Preceding Employment on the Revelstoke Project

Unemployment Social Total** Income Insurance Assistance (Percent)

less than 10,000 19 3 22 (11.5) 10,000 to 15,000 18 3 21 (10.9) 15,000,to 20,000 30 5 35 (18.2) 20,000 to 25,000 25 0 25 (13.0) 25,000 to 30,000 19 1 20 (10.4) 30,000 to 35,000 26 1 27 (14.1) More than 35,000 22 0 22 ( 11.5) Uns12ecified 18 2 20 (10.4) Total 177 15 192(100.0) (Percent) (92.2) (7:8) (100.0)

Total sample = 232 * ** May be counting those who collect both Unemployment Insurance and

Social Assistance twice.

. r·. ······ ·~--·-~· ·-----·--···-····~ -;y- ---~

r t

~\ I.

. I . ' -F.''·'· ·.·' .. · •. . . . . . ' ·.C\L···· ~= . ,.~lliW'!UI!M •• FM!IW''•..-:-·,..,,.......;. .. ~,"''"'-"*"-,;:~~ ..... ::..--.···.:.......· ~-· ~ .. --~-·..<.· ...... -·-··l

["'

r-------j

' ! I i !

I f

f I r r f I.

f

I I I

I

I

I I I

J

,--

P[}\CfNTRGf

25 -j

i -I

l:'4 ~ i -I -I

2;;.: -l j I

J ZO ~~

I

~ ].g "l

-j I

-j

10 j 1 i -(

14 _j j ' I

l

:2 ~ i (26)

i G 1 q J

~ j 4

0 <10 10-lS

- 15 -

FIC;UI~E B PREVIO'CS YEAR GROSS INCO~IE

$, THOUSANDS ( 1982)

15-20 20 QC' --'-iJ 25-30

(35)

) ·,'

30-35

1982 GROSS 1NCOME {THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

-NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS GIVEN IN PARENTHE51S ABOVE THE BARS. -r N=2SO J.

(40)

>.35 UN ~1f' f C

i 1 I I

I I I

I I.

I I

I I I I I I I I I I t

l.fl ;y ~ ""0 l ...... ~

:.0 ~ n ~ -<'I ........._I. z ;1

c -('j -z

; . J

so

40

30

s

·~ . ~ \

\ • • ·~ ·\

\ . I \

\ I

\

/ (

I I

- 16 -

FIGURE 9 UlC RECIPIENTS AND MEAN INCOME

r "•

LEGEND ------------------------

RECEIVING UIC (-) MEAN GROSS INCOME (-)

----~ .,t' ··,

I /

/ + I

/

·. I

~···. I ,· \ 1

1' \ .,.

\ \ j\ ' I \

I \) \ I \ \ I \ \. ,' \ I I \ \ . ·~ \ I \ . I \

\ 1/ '· .... )... ' \ I ..,.! ' . \ J ·... '···

I ~ I

·~.J'" ~-

] 0 12 14 16 18 20 22

QUARTER

YEAR -N.B. FIRST QUARTER= JAN~ARY-MRRCH,1977. -f. N=2~;0).

-

30

... _ /

I ···~. ' \ l -. i

'~ . "'·· .......... ":.;

\

\

\ .... _ + - ·+ -- . -+ .. \

I \ I

i I .

24 26 28

I :

I I w lf

i ;

! I l '· l

I I

= ~

I

I I I I I I I I t

·-=-!'. . r~

- 17 -

In Table 4, the respondents are grouped by t~:-.ion affiliation

and (whether they were receiving) financial 35slstance. In all the

categories listed below, except O.T.E.U., seventy-two percent or ·more of

a union•s members received financial as~istance.

TABLE 4: Union Affi1 i ati on of Respondents Who Received Unemployment Insurance or Socia 1 Assistance During 12 Months Preceding Employment on the Revelstoke Project

Total Unemployment Social Respondents

Trade Insurance Assistance (Percent)

Boilermakers 11 0 11 (100.0) Cement t~asons 20 1 29 (72.4) Electrical Workers 14 1 16 (93.8) Ironworkers 23 2 34 (73.5) Machinists 13 1 13 (100.0) O.T.E.U. 1 0 Cl (11.1) _,

Painters 49 5 54 (91.5) Pipefitters 12 1 13 (100.0) Other 28 3 40 (77.5) Uns~ecified 6 1 7 (87.5) Total 177 15 226 (85.0)

* Total Sample = 232

The estimate of the fraction of respondents receiving

financial assistance during this time period has decreased to about 77%, from 84% in the 1 ast reporting period, the first reversa 1 of this

worsening trend which has persisted since Report No. 7 (July - December 1981).

The percentage of take home pay expected to be spent in

Reve 1 stoke by the \\lorker ~ s residence during the week is shown in Figure 10.

About 75 percent of the respondents ( N=250) anticipate spending 25 percent or less of their take home pay in Revelstoke.

Only six of the respondents plan to spend 50 percent or more of their

income in the community. Sixty-two percent of the sample spend less

than 25 percent of their pay in Revelstoke and live in the construction camp during the week.

--

[

I I

I I

I

I

I

I'

I

F'fRCENTRG[

51) -·

~ 0 .

-,_, ..... .

- 18 -

FIGlJRE 10 PERCENTAGE OF TAKEHO).IE PAY SPENT IN

REYELSTOKE BY WORKERS RESIDENCE DURING THE WEEK

I ::o

I

I

I

I

1 0 ··-

u -<: 101. 10-251. 25-50/. 50-75% > 75/.

PERCENTAGE Of 1 AKEHOME ~~y

RES I DENC:E ~.><..AXJ<.~ CRI4P I - c, --·- :] D T H t: R · .. ··· REVEL c1 nvE t_, -· _. _..J ... 1 vi\ 1.:· -~.:.·!:.·::iJ UN 5 P E C I F. I [ 0

-I~UI··If.iEF~ OF f~ESPOt~DENTS GIVEN IN F'A~~ENTI'lt2dS. -IN:::250).

-

'

~ I I I ,

' ~ i u 1 I

!

'1 ~ I ' ~~ '

~,

;,. • = ~ i!;

·n J;J

·~ ,, '

·~

I I .I .I in 1W '

' .

'I L,

i ~ ...

[iJ 'I l "''

- 19 -

HOUSING

Data on the housing cha racteri st i cs of the \'/ork force are

presented in Figures 11 through 13 end Tables 5 and 6. Seventy-nine

percent of the respondents ( N=250) I i ve or p 1 an to live in the

construction camp. Sixteen percent of the respondents reside in Revelstoke during the week.

Figure 12 contains a di stri buti on of the samp 1 e • s union affiliation by place of residence during the week. Only the two unions

receiving a live-out allowance, OTEIJ and IBEVJ new hires, display a

distinct preference for living in Revelstoke as opposed to anywhere else during the week.

In Figure 13 about 21 percent (35) of the non-single respondents (N=168) have moved or plan to move to Revelstoke while

. employed on the project. Of these, 14 have moved and 21 anti ci pate

relocating to the community. As in the .last report, the demand for

Reve 1 stoke accorninoda ti on is concentrated upon renta 1 accommodation,

especially in the acquisition of .a single room (i.e. the 11 other 11

category).

TABLE 5: Number of Respondents Who Have Moved (or plan to move) to Revel stoke

Have ~1oved Plan to t•1ove Total

Number

14 21 35

Percent of Non­Single Respondents

8.3 12.5 20.8

1. Does not include pre-project residents (N=168).

r~---- __ " _____________ ---- -:;; --?ffWW•

-

' '

I F c.: E. 0 U E N C Y

-

- 20 -

FIC;URE 1.1 RESIDENCE OF WORKFORCE WHILE

EMPLOYED ON PROJECT

I 3SO '

·~· t I u

~ AJ

·~· ' <

'!;'j

!W' .

'

I

.I

.I .

. I

-;-. , .... n _, d ._J

:'U'J J ·I

1 l)'J

':iU

1\EVEt 0~\/SHUG SIC I ~I RL

RE~, T OF NCE

- R E r E R T 0 R r> P F N C I X I~- 2 r CJ R G E lJ Lt R R P 1'1 I C L Q C R T I ~ N • - P E ~~ C r !~ T Cl r ~:\ E L r (JJ··~ !:; t N 1 S L I V c N I N PA ~ E NTH F ~ 1 [, -I N=?~ILI 1 •

1., .. , .. ,.,_.~--------~--

--

' ' I

--...Ill

I<

'

•

" ;< <J !ill

ri'OI! ~ j l':l tl*

?o~n

-· ,_1 ·-'

1 L1 'J

0 -r '") 1·11·' -, ..

-- 20 -

FIC~URE 11 RESIDENCE OF WORKFORCE WHILE

EMPLOYED ON PHOJECT

(0.8) (0.4) f~EVEt Uh/Sl-lUG SIC I ~~~L

RESJDfNCE .I

.I - H E r E f\ T 0 R !> f' F N [~ 1 X I~ - 2 1- 0 R G E Q Ld\ li J"") H I C L 0 C R T I ~ N • -rrnr~NT 0~ ~EGrUNG~NlG SlVEN IN PR~fNTHfb!S -1 N=?:.c~ J •

~~

r----------<--

(0.4) ~THf~

I I f

}<

f

I l I 1

.

--I I 0 c c ~

0 n LJ

, ~

~

I I

I ·~

~

J I j

I,;: •'t' r. ' IT • . 'fvl \ ' -1 u.

. ··'

~~ j

I .J .1 l ·j ·I l .,

I I -·1 I

.,I I • l j:"'

,-, .. !'-: H 1\ -.. \

s

- 21 -

FI ,.-"fTTPE 1 ::-> \.:T u .£. lw .J i--J

UNION AFFILIATION BY RESIDENCE DUHING THE 'WEEK

! 1-1 I

l N "T'

l

!:

N

(16)

!" 1 .. I p (.... '' C" D ,.

N . T L I! I •

~·

l p 1 \

c 1\ R t;

L. l f"J - I\

s

~~~::! C l ~ lvJ r; rLZT/77~ ... : !i ,_ R

(13)

t··l r-"I r· ~

H 1 ,!

1'-l I ("• J T I"' ;,)

. I

; ! i

. I i j

i

[~~~ ~ } t .. P !vi 0 US I '1 q L P K viR

1, • ,·. 1 P• ' t.l•' I I ] f· t4L \;, ••·' .• •·t,l;l•i . I ,-, h' .~ (, • I 1 'i j : ' ,• I •.t.~··•--''·

(10) (48) (63)

("• t"j r." • l ... T T ~ . ~ H . u I= N ..

:-· T \

~ . u p

\

N ..,)

I 11

t~

r- --- --- ---------------------~--:-- --,

(14)

.~

r. I

r-~

. --:

!

..

..J

(8' • J

t.

r\

I

I l l ---------~--1

I

I

I

0

I

I I

~

I I

I

f f\EQUE!'-ICY

30

·-: t ... •)

LD

1 l ! ·)

iO

c· 'J

0 -

(2)

~ ; I

H 0 LJ ... .J

r

L.-'-TNC · r ... ~ ... _ 1"

' '

14 0 B . li 0 ~I [

HRVt.

CHOICE:

T 0 w N I A p T

-· r ~. {

- 22 -

FIGURE 13 HO'LSING TYPE 'F'OR WORKERS WHO HAVE

!\!0\"ED lOR PLAN TO MOVE) TO RE\'EL::-,'TOKE

(10)

0 u H 11 T T· N 0 0 0 H <..' u u B '~ E p ('' N ...1

R E [ H I c 0 R

t'l p . f. T

(J

(8)

0 T . H E r' ,,

l10VEO PLAN TO MOVE

['Ot"<Xl BUY lX'X'XXl Rf.NT l*·<s - -... ~

-DOfS NOT.JNCLUDF NATIVES Of RfVELSTOKE. -N=230 ~

u N \:"" ~· p i=7" TYPf. ~ , .. :..

INTLNT

UNSPE~·

I I

0 l C' i . j ' ! ,.

l

~ M

0

c

- 23 -

The number of ·respondents who anticipate rema1n1ng in the Revelstoke area after the Project is completed is shown in Table 6.

About 65 percent of the sample do not plan to remain in the area and

about 21 percent are undecided. Only two percent of the sample stated that they intended to remain in the Okanagan-Shuswap area.

TABLE 6: Respondents Who Anticipate Remaining in Area Upon Project Completion

Hill Stay In Number Percent

Revels toke 3 1.2 Okanagan-Shuswap 5 2.0 Other 1 0.4 Hill not remain in the area 162 64.8 Undecided 52 20.8 Uns12ecified 27 10.8 Total 250 100.0

-

~ ..

r I I

I I.

I I.

. . . . . .. . ,-.. o•·;,;,J .~~~"'"'-'• ~~~· ........ ....._, ~'"'-"' 4'"""-"'' _% ....... '«-''"'-· ''-'-' .......... ....,. ____ .,._. .. frO_• ... -.~,

- 24 -

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND EDUCATION

This section provides information on anticipated community facility use, participation in community activities and potential effects on the local school system. Table 7 indicates the frequency of visits the sample plans to make to Revelstoke each week for shopping, recreation, and business. t~or'e visits are made to Revelstoke for recr'eati on and shopping than for business. The majority of respondents (N=250) who plan to visit Revelstoke for these purposes will make one or two trips per week. In tota 1, 146 recreation a 1 trips are made to Revel stoke each \'Jeek by respondents, as indicated by Figure 14. The respondents also make about 118 shopping trips, and 90 business trips to the community each week. Respondents belonging to the Painters Unions and the Ironworkers Union plan to make the g~eatest number of visitf to the community for these purposes.

Table 8 shows the proportion of respondents who participate or plan to become involved in various activities in Revelstoke. Almost 60 percent of the sample did not respond to this question and rrBny may not participate or plan to participate in any of the listed activities. Seventy-six percent (78) of those who did respond plan to participate in recreational activities, and 8 percent (8) plan to attend night school.

TABLE 7.: Plans to v·, sit Revel stoke

Number of Shopping Recreation Business Visits/Vleek (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)

0 50 (20.0) 56 (22.4) 55 (22.0) 1 42 (16.8) 27 (10.8) 59 (23.6) 2 28 (11.2) 25 (10.0) 10 ( 4.0) 3 3 ( 1.2) 8 ( 3.2) 0 ( 0.0) 4 1 ( 0.4) 5 ( 2.0) 1 ( 0.4) 5 0 ( 0.0) 5 ( 2.0) 0 ( 0.0)

~1ore than 5 1 ( 1. 4) 0 ( 0.0) 1 ( 0.4) UnsEecified 125 (50.0) 124 (49.6) 124 (49.6) Total (Percent} 250(100.0) 250{100.0) 250(100.0)

r

' l

r I 1

I

; I I C

n ~

:I I I

.; I,

~'

LEGEND~ UNION

N=250.

- 25 -

FIGURE 14 PLANS TO VISIT REVELSTOKE

TRIPS /'YEEK

VISITS SUM

250

200

100

50

0

(146)

(118)

i ' ,• I

(90)

SHOPPING RECREATION BUSlNESS

TYPE Of VISIT

ux '7' """. • C E M E N T ~ .. 6(.,_,_:..'$. • •

b •• §.S..."!...J MACH IN I ST ·.~.,-.--" PR1Nl[RS

l

I

I C. .

i I

j~ ! tJ l

! c c

n. ~

k I

. - , . lJ

- 26 -

The number of school age children of workers vJho have m,oved or· plan to move their families tc: .,evelstoke is indicated in Table 9 for the survey period covered by this report. At the time of the sur·vey, respondents anticipated moving five schoo 1 age chi 1 dr·en to the community. If these children enrolled in local schools, 2 would require elementary schooling. Five children under the age of five have moved to or are expected to tnove to the community.

TABLE 8: Participation in Community Activities Ac.+ivity Number Pe.rcent

Recreation 78 31.2 Cul tura 1 9 3.6 Night School (Vocational) 6 2.4 Night School (Academic) 2 0.8 Business Investment "' 1.2 ,:)

City s Schoo 1 , District Affairs 4 1.6 No ResRon.s~ 148 59.2 Total · · 250 100.0

TABLE 9: Number of School Age Children of Wor~ers Who Have Moved (or plan to move) Their Families to Revelstoke

Hav.e Moved Plan to Hove Age in 1982 Families Famil1es Total --0-5 1 4 5 6-13 0 2 2

14-19 0 3 3 Total T 9 TO ... -.

I I

! r l f

l

I

H LJ

,0

i u D

C.

I

·,:--, J ' (;' ... ~~ ·'• · ..

~-c.........-...:--'L-~-----------....._· ....__.-......................... _ . ....,. .... t,_~..._~l

- 27 -

SUMMARY.OF SURVEY RESULTS FOR REPORT 11

There have been some minor changes in workforce profile since Report No. 10, along with some interesting developments in the Income area.

The workforce is still 99% male but there has been a four point decrease in the married fraction to 52%, with 61% of the married respondents having dependents. The workforce origin is still primarily the Lower r~a in 1 and, with the Thompson-Ni·co 1 a second 1 a rgest and Okanagan-Shuswap third.

As the project is well into its completion phase, Painters and other small trade unions continue to make up a significant share of the labour force (43%).

Over the past few years, data on income, unemployment and receipt of unemp 1 oyment insurance for the 1 abour force has closely paralleled both national. and regional economic conditions. A major· dec 1 i ne in income accompanied by rna rked increases in unemp 1 oyment and UIC recipients occurrld in late 1981 and early 1982.

There are several indications that reinforce the observation made in Report No. 10 that the recessionary impact upon the incoming labour force has diminished slightly.

In Figure 6 "Previous Location of Respondents lvho I-: eft a Job to Work on the Reve 1 stoke Project 11

, it is noted that a tot a 1 of seven percent of the workforce had lPft other jobs to come to work on the project, the same as that discovered in the previous pet iod (January­June 1983). This fraction of the respondents, an indicator of the amount and variety of employment opportunity available for workers, reached a high of 25% in Report No. 7 (July to December 1981) and a low of 5% in Report No.9 (July to December 1982). Also unemployment recipients slipped from 77% high last r-eport to 71%, the first significant decline since mid-1981.

-___]

I.

I '

I I

j I.

r i

I

I

~ u

I I 0

' D

i. o-·. \ t . 1'

c C-,

'

.

D

c n fat

- 28 -

Income data (Figure 8), when compared with the last report, shows a modest upwards shift in income, though the increase in the 11 unspecified 11 income bracket urges some caution in this assertion.

The changes in demand for accommodation noted in the 1 ast report ('Le. away from houses to rooms) is continued in this survey periodo Complementary to this observation is the length of time emp 1 oyees expect to work on the project (Figure 7). Over 90% of the workers are uncertain about the length of their employment or expect to be employed no longer than one month. Clearly, the potential employment period and economic situation make the choice of renting a room more attractive than other accommodation.

As might be expected workers are displaying less inclination to relocate to Revelstoke and this is reflected in Tables 8 and 9.

' .... ~ ---- ,, ,. ""'··----~--~·--.r--~~---~--.. -.: .. ~ .. -~ .. - -~----------·:·----·---· ·-- ~-......... , ... '1 ·;_\' _:_-· .:.:. -.... ~-·--··--·----·---------·----.-.'-··--··"-"'"'"' . r

. ~-

f I I J i

I .

l l

u a I

~ \ . f ' ~

t:J

r"l u

u c c c c

l c

,;

E -n Ill'

Q

APPENDIX A-1

RESPONSE RATE AND SAMPLING ERROR

u

l I L ~)

[_

l

l l I ~ -

l t

I (

l I I : I I

' .... !

~~~aw~~~~~~~~~----~~~~~----~~------------~~~~~~~~~

r I I

l

! l

~· l

:•I

I 1 i i ! i

I '

j I l

I

I I

APPENDIX A-1

Response Rate

Appendix A-1 Page 1

There are three classifications of hiring at Columbia Hydro Constructors (CHC):

Rehires

Transfers

Individu~ls that have previously worked on the Revel stoke Project and therefore have a past employment record with CHC.

An individual working on the Revelstoke Project who transfers to another job or contractor.

Individuals hired for the first time by CHC on the Revelstoke Project.

R~hires and transfers who have filled a position since July would already have been included in the target population in previous reports, therefore the target population for this report is new hires from July 1983 to December 1983.

During this period, 376 new hires were hired on by CHC. From this target population, 250 questionnaires were completed with one questionnaire per new hire. The response rate to the questionnaire was 250/376 X 100 = 66.5%.

Sampling Error

Assuming independence between questionnaire responses, the sample is expected to approximate a binomial probability distribution. The sampling error is estimated using the following formula for the t-distribution.

r I l I ! I

r

'l J

I

··f

I f I 1

I f t

I I I I

~ l l i !

: l !

'l l 1 l

. I ~ l

Where •n• is large the expression

X=(m-p)/ p* (1-p)/n has a normal distribution.

Where n = sample size m = sample mean p = population mean x = standard deviate for a given confidence level s = variance of sample mean

Appendix A-1 Page 2

The sampling error is estimated by (p-m) = x* p*(l-p)/n

The variance is largest when p=0.5. This is the worst case. The s~mple error is determined by (p-m) = 0.5*x/ n with a confidence level at 95 percent the sample error = 0.5*x1.96 I~ 250

= 0.062 or 6.2%

G I

: ,J a '

''

'1 I i l ~ I

I J I

l I ~ !

{

u i i l

I n u

J

l ~ ' I t..J

f '

f .,...,

J . ..., . i

.J I j

APPENDIX A-2 0"-'-t

I ;;.J MAP OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS

l

.D I I l

0 ! ~ t I I

-

n '* l D

··o·. !

FT

~ .. :. '

.D

..

....

'I

.

. c.: -

"'r_ "

-.... (::

.... c -

--

7-C

"--

,:; _,

-.... -~ r. •

c .c.

..... .. t•

r. r.

-: ,...

,. a.. i.(

r ..

c.

-~

"C" ':t

J;.

~

;I.

~ ~

c: ~.

r.

.I

c: .. :-.. '-'! c :.

l I I l f I

t I ! } l ! l I ; i r I l l f I

.! ;'"':;J ~ Gi u

1'"1

LJ

' .. _~j· M ~> ~ !

u

~~ l 1 I

II, ~ w {

.i

j'l : l u

FJ L..!

n ' I w

0

lc I )l 0 1 I 0 l ' l 1 I I .

I n t u ' '

~

-~ ·--~-·"""-'~·~--~-·- .... ''"'""'"'""''"""'·--·,..~-... - ........ -..~ .. -""'._. ... ~.~..,_ ~...,._,.....,_ _ ___....,_ ........... _';'""--~··- .,_...

APPENDIX A-3

PROJECT EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES IN REVELSTOKE

" '"·-··-,·~-1' """"·•-·-···-·-;:,-·~·--•~-------·-·~··-w~·~---·--.. - ·-·-· "

i

I f l

r.

r

r·

I I l !

I t '

I I

'I 0

'l

D u D

0 n ! I u

1"'"1

I 1 u

!] I ,

I l L.J

r bl ~

I D f1 I ! w

0 D

0 '

fl w

1 ~

~

w

Appendix A-3 Page · 1

Net Pdyroll for On Site Project Workers* and Workers• Expenditures in Revelstoke

Net Payroll Mean Percent *** Total Expenditures Period Covered ($ Thousands) Spent in Revelstoke in Revelstoke ($000)

Mar - Dec 1977 $ 8,210 17.1%** 1,404 Jan - Jun 1978 6,919 17.1%** 1,183 Jul - Dec 1978 11,146 18.5% 2,062 Jan - Jun 1979 10,536 16.2% 1,707 Jul Dec 1979 14,536 18.4% 2,675 Jan - Jun 1980 11,319 15.4% 1,743 Jul - Dec 1980 19,367 18.5% 3,583 Jan - Jun 1981 21,447 18.7% 4,011 Jul - Dec 1981 36,985 17.0% 6,287 Jan - Jun 1982 22,348 16.7% 3,732 Jul - Dec 1982 36,668 13.5% 4,950 Jan - Jun 1983 30,536 13.3% 4,061 Jul - Dec 1983 34~386 13.4% 4,608 Total

*

**

***

$264,403 15. 9~& 42,006

Excludes B.C. Forest Service reservoir clearing workers, transmi ss i on-1 i ne workers, · t~i n i stry of Hi gh\t/ays contractors, B.C. Hydro and contractor managers and supervisors, as well as City of Revelstoke contractors

Figures are obtai ned from an average of the mean percent expenditure in Revelstoke as determined from the survey for period July thtough December 1978 to January through June 1980

Figures are mean percent expend,cures in Revelstoke obtained from the survey for the periods indicated

l

I

'i

... i I '

LJ

n LJ

D n I ; ! ; 1-J

n L;

0

D

D J

lo jlfll n u l

' .

•. :::,c::-:-',~---) _, _'~ ~ 0 ---"' . ~- ~]

Appendix A-3 Page 2

B.C. Hydro and contractor managers and supervisors (to date about 10% of on-site employees) are not hired through CHC and therefore they are not included in the sample, nor in the expenditures data in the above tab 1 e. fvia nagement personne 1 has a "1 i vi ng out a 11 owancett comparable to the IBEH and OTEU. Most management personnel maintain a full-time family residence in Revelstoke. Generally management personnel teceive a higher salary than CHC union hires. It follows, therefore, that the management personne 1' s contribution to the tota 1

expenditures in Revelsto~e would represent in excess of 10% of the estimated total expenditures recorded above. A ~onservative estimate of CHC union hires and management personnel's contributions combined would place total expenditures in Revelstoke in excess of $46 million for the period beginning with the commencement ot the project in March 1977, to the end of the indicated sample period in December 1983.

In addition to CHC h. res ·and management personnsl contributions to total expenditures in Revelstoke, one should consider the employment of City of Revelstoke contractor's (e.g. construction of City t•1obile Horne Park) and other project related workers (e.g. B.C. Forest Service and Ministry of Highways). This lattet' contribution to the total expenditures in Revelstoke is more difficult to determine. (As are total expenditures in Revelstoke resulting from project purchases of materials and services).

r !

!

·I U 1

:j c

! I l

I l I I I

' I i l u

n I I : J L .......

n I f I l l . L:.i

n w

D

0 D r~1

i ! w

~

Q

0 !

J ·_ ·_. ,; - .. ' - ' - ~ . ·- "-·-····--

APPENDIX A-4

REVISED QUESTIONNAIRE

... I

i I

! '

! I I l

!~ I I

I !

I I

j1 l j

'LJ J

j 10 u

®B. C~ HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY REVELSTOKE CANYON PROJECT

EMPLOYEE QuESTIONNAIRE

TO IMPROVE PLA.NN I NG FOR FUTURE PROJEC'fS, B.C. HYDRO NEEDS INFORMATION ON LABOUR FORCE

CHARACTERISTICS, HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, AND THE USE THAT EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES MAKE OF

COMMUNITY SERVICES. THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY WILL Bf.NEFIT LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND HYDRO WORKERS.

BETTER PLANNING WILL ENSURE SATISFACTORY LIVING CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES ON

HYDRO PROJECTS, BOTH NOW At IN THE FUTURE. YOU CAN HELP MAKE THE SURVEY A SUCCESS BY COMPLETING

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, THE RESULTS OF WHICH SHOULD BE USEFUL TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE

REVELSTOKE PROJECT.

PLEASE NOTE: QUESTIONS ON INCOME, SAVINGS, AND SPENDING, ARE AIMED AT FINDING OUT

IF THE REVELSTOKE PROJECT 18 HAVING A GOOD EFFECT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE

YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS WE DO NOT WANT TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. ALL ANSWERS

ARE KEPT ~TRICTLY CONFIDENTI~L AND ARE USED FOR RESEARCH AND PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. IF YOU

THINK SOM[ QUESTIONS ARE TOO PERSONAL, YOU MAY SKIP THEM, BUT PLEASE ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS )-{

\ AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.

n ! ; LJ

n u

D ..

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. PLEASE PUT CHECK MARKS IN THE SMALL BOXES (LIKE THIS ~~) OR NUMBERS IN THE

ANSWER sLOTS {LIKE THIs I ,s I ) TO SHOW YOUR ANSWER.

2. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY FILLED OUT ONE OF THESE QUESTIONNAIRES IN THE PAST, SOME OF

THE INFORMATION ¥0U GAV£ THEN MAY BE OUT-Of-DATE BY NOW, SO PLEASE FILL OUT THE

QUESTIONNAIRE AGAIN AT THIS TIME.

3· PLEASE .IGNORE THE SMALL RED NUMBERS YOU SEE BESIDE THE ANSWER BOXES AND SLOTS,

THESE ARE FOR COMPUTER CODING ONLY, AND DO NOT AFFECT YOUR ANSWERS IN ANY WAY.

4. SOME QUESTIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOUR OWN SITUATION. THESE CAN BE IGNORED.

_j