Impacts on the workforce

The term ‘workforce’ primarily means those people who work at the facility at whatever level in the organizational hierarchy, the ‘staff’. Comments relating to the staff could also be applied to some other groups of people, the defining characteristic being that their income is completely derived from employment directly dependent on the operation of the facility. This would extend the workforce to include the staff of local contractors with long-standing

service contracts at a facility, for example, maintenance services, site transport services and franchised catering companies.

Decommissioning could also have effects on remotely based central organization personnel or employees of major suppliers to the facility. It could also affect the staff of organizations that may be largely dedicated to the facility, such as regulators. Although in these latter cases the effects on local communities are likely to be limited due to the relatively small number of people involved, the change for any individual person will remain a challenging one to deal with. In the discussion below the emphasis is on facility staff, but much will be implicitly relevant to these other groups.

Shutdown and decommissioning will inevitably lead to reduced numbers of personnel employed, and changes to the skill profile required. Decommis-sioning brings the prospect that workers with highly specialized work skills are no longer required. There will be a significant human resource planning task in reducing staff numbers, retraining for decommissioning and avoiding a loss of critical corporate memory. Staff directly employed in the operation of a nuclear facility are usually full time, long term employees whose career length expecta-tions may exceed the remaining projected lifetime of the facility.

If shutdown announcements and human resource planning are not done well, then tensions may be generated potentially leading to labour relations or other staffing problems [1]. These have the potential to cause serious and costly consequences for the remaining operational lifetime of the nuclear facility.

These possible consequences include a negative impact on safety culture, reduced operational performance or uncontrolled and unanticipated loss of critical numbers of key workers leaving for career opportunities elsewhere while they are still needed to support preparations for decommissioning.

Plant workers can be expected to suffer from significant increases in personal and family stress following a shutdown announcement. The resultant impact will continue until the causes are addressed to the satisfaction of the individuals involved – a subjective consideration. If those who are responsible for restructuring are not affected themselves, they may not foresee the impact of events on others.

Often the cause of stress is uncertainty about the future, and one potential coping mechanism is to take control of the situation by creating and taking an early opportunity to leave for other employment. From the perspective of the plant owner, there is a concern that those most able to move on may also be among the most valuable for the remaining period of operation and possibly for at least part of the decommissioning.

There are potentially conflicting drivers on the remaining duration of jobs at the facility. On the one hand, once productive activity is at an end, staff costs represent a significant outgoing that needs to be reduced as soon as possible.

On the other hand, it will be necessary to recruit key skills specific to decom-missioning, and it would also be wise to retain selected experienced staff.

Delays in starting decommissioning activities may damage morale due to the continued sense of uncertainty, even though the job lifetime may be effectively extended.

It is clear from the above discussion that there are many issues that may affect the workforce as a result of shutdown or impending shutdown, and many of these are listed below. They are grouped into three headings:

(1) Psychological issues;

(2) Personal and family income issues;

(3) Perceived management performance issues.

Issues are assumed to be negative in impact, but those that could be seen as positive are marked with an asterisk.

In detail, the issues that potentially affect the workforce of a decommis-sioning facility are as follows:

(1) Psychological issues:

— Shock if the shutdown of the facility is sudden and imposed from outside, for example, a political decision;

— Frustration, especially if there is no perceived technical reason for shutdown;

— Distraction from normal activities, with a potentially negative impact on morale, performance and safety;

— Delay of readjustment due to hope that the shutdown decision may be reversed;

— Feeling of having no influence on decisions made elsewhere yet having a major personal impact;

— Loss of the identity provided by work;

— Feeling unappreciated for dedication to the facility;

— Feeling that one’s particular or special skills are not valued;

— Feeling devalued and lacking confidence to face the prospect of radical change and to find other employment;

— Confusion if decommissioning plans are not clearly understood;

— Fear of having to retrain for unfamiliar fields, possibly viewed as of lower status;

— Concern over the prospect of retiring at an earlier age than expected;

— Excitement over new opportunities and experiences*;

— Increased self-reliance*.

(2) Personal and family income issues:

— Concern about the effect of reduced income on family life;

— The prospect of having to live away from home or move to another location;

— Uncertain job and career prospects;

— Uncertainty about availability and adequacy of pension, social security and other benefits;

— Uncertainty about duration of job even if retrained for decommissioning;

— Absence of prospects for family members of employees;

— Prospect of multiple breadwinners in a family becoming redundant simultaneously;

— Opportunity to fulfil an ambition to build a new business using redundancy funds*.

(3) Management performance issues:

— Fall in confidence in management if decisions are not well communicated or if there are no clear plans;

— Risk of resignation of workers essential to supporting late operations and decommissioning;

— Visibly promoting the re-employment or training of staff for new facilities*;

— Reduction in safety culture, with an increased number of accidents or other unwanted events;

— Risk of increased staff absenteeism;

— Unrest if it is perceived that preferential treatment is given to some staff;

— Staff resentment of the use of outside contractors for some decommis-sioning tasks;

— Failure to manage public opinion, resulting in criticism as the facility receives more public exposure;

— Demonstration of common cause with staff as they and management face up to the same personal issues*;

— Increased credibility through making difficult decisions related to staff in a fair and transparent manner*.

The actions to mitigate the effects listed above are described in Section 4.

The partitioning into three groups provides some insight into the nature of the mitigation required. Psychological impacts are internal to the person concerned, and mitigating measures will have to recognize the subjective nature of the issue. Personal and family income issues are more measurably felt within the family unit, and mitigating measures will inevitably have to include a financial component. Issues related to actual or perceived management performance represent a collective staff response to the management of the

facility. The challenge is to the facility management to anticipate and deal with these issues.