Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

The 15.5 per cent of the COEP sample who are considered seasonal workers can be characterised in many ways. Table 1 shows the basic demographic distribution. Then the province, industry and communities are examined. The next table gives the description of the seasonal jobs, followed by a description of the adjustment process when the jobs are over. The final characteristic to be focussed on is the planning framework faced by seasonal workers.

Seasonal Work is Unevenly Distributed

Seasonal workers are distinctive in many ways. Even an examination of the basic demographics is revealing. In Table 1, it is shown that 64.9² percent of seasonal workers are male, whereas only 50.5 are male in the non-seasonal jobs. Although, the average age of the two groups is the same, there are significant differences in the underlying age distribution with youth being far more prominent among seasonal workers. Seasonal workers also appeared to be less tied down by family obligations as they are less likely to be married or divorced by about 8 percentage points. In addition, they are 5.6 percentage points less likely to have children under 16. Finally, seasonal workers are more likely to be less educated, as 33.9 per cent of them have less than high-school education compared to 19.9 per cent for non-seasonal.

Table 2 shows the extent to which seasonal work tends to be concentrated in certain industries and regions. For example, in Newfoundland 31 per cent were seasonally employed. This is twice as high as the national average, indicating a distinctly different industrial structure than the rest of the country. The range over the whole country is immense, from 42.4 per cent in Prince Edward Island to 11.4 per cent in Ontario. In general, seasonality is highest in the east.

According to this table, the variations in seasonality are more pronounced by industry. The industries range from 59 per cent in Agriculture to 3.7 per cent in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate industry. In general, the high levels of seasonality are in industries that have not been growing as quickly, thus contributing to an overall fall in the concentration of seasonal work in the economy.

As shown in Table 3, seasonal jobs have significantly different characteristics. For a start, the wages on the job lost by seasonal workers is somewhat lower. However, this understates the relative disadvantage of seasonal workers as they will earn less in a typical year. This is shown by comparing the total earnings given on the T1 in the year before the job loss. The seasonal workers reported an average of $12,303 on their T1 tax form, whereas the non-seasonal reported $20,114. In addition, seasonal workers were less likely to have medical benefits or a pension plan. These additional factors combine to portray seasonal workers in a less favourable light. This is particularly true when it is considered that seasonal workers have to work more hours to get less. As well, seasonal workers are less likely to be in unions. Still it is important to remember that the figures given on Table 3 are only averages and that seasonal workers are highly varied. Although the average seasonal worker does make less than their non-seasonal counterparts, there is a significant portion that are well-paid.

Certain Communities Can Take on Strong Seasonal Characteristics

To fully appreciate the nature of seasonal work, it is necessary to understand that it can be highly concentrated in certain communities, most often as a result of a dependence on one particular industry in the community. In order to illustrate this, Table 4 provides data on four selected communities, which are available within the COEP survey.

What is first striking is the variation in seasonal work among the communities. The two more rural communities in Atlantic Canada have seasonal rates far higher than the other two. For example, in Clarenville Newfoundland, the share of seasonal workers in COEP is 33.3 per cent compared to the 9.7 per cent found in Calgary.

The distribution of industries was examined to obtain a sense of the nature of the community labour market. This analysis was restricted to primary, manufacturing and construction as the distribution of the service industries were similar among communities. In the communities where there is a higher concentration of seasonal work, a primary industry is found to dominate seasonal employment. However, in the lower concentration communities, construction tends to dominate the seasonal employment that exist. In addition, in the lower concentration communities, seasonal workers are less likely to expect to return to their employers after the job loss.

Seasonal Workers Can Cope Better with Job Separation

In general, the evaluation evidence argues that seasonal workers cope at least as well, if not better, with job loss than non-seasonal. Audenrode and Storer (1998, Table 5) reported that the likelihood is higher of finding another job for those who lost a seasonal job. This is confirmed on Table 5, where the seasonal workers are shown to have a 15.5 per cent chance of being unemployed for more than 52 weeks, as compared to a 26.6 per cent chance for non-seasonal. In addition to being more likely to get a new job, Audenrode and Storer found that they perform just as well as non-seasonal in terms of labour force participation and wage gains. A possible contributing factor may be that seasonal workers are more likely to have a recall date when their job terminates, as shown in Table 6.

Overall, the seasonal workers are better able to maintain their well-being. Browning (Browning 1998, p. 25, Table 3.7) makes this point, as less seasonal workers experience drops in consumption a year after the job loss. They are able to do this without making significantly different use of EI or Social Assistance than non-seasonal, as is shown in Table 5.

A lot of the reason for their relative success can be explained by the examination of the circumstances surrounding their job loss. Table 6 reveals that seasonal workers are far more likely to be laid-off than other workers, 72 per cent as versus 39.2 per cent. This by itself should have made it more difficult to cope with job terminations. However, 73.0 per cent of seasonal workers expected to return to the same employer compared to only 47.1 per cent for other workers. As well, other indicators suggest advantages for seasonal workers as they were more likely to receive notice and have return dates. On the down side, they were less likely to receive some form of financial compensation, such as severance, following the job loss.

The higher expected return rates is in line with the finding that seasonal workers did not put as much time into their job search (Crémieux et al. 1995 p. 20). This is likely due to the nature of the labour market work, as some seasonal workers will just return to jobs that they are familiar with each year, which would not involve an extensive job search.

Seasonal Workers have a Different Planning Framework

In Green and Sargent (1995), the claim behaviour of seasonal workers are examined under the UI system. The initial view was one in which seasonal workers have complete freedom to select the number of weeks that they work over the 52-week period for which they plan. It was found that if the seasonal worker tried to maximise both his annual income and leisure³, then it was possible to work just enough weeks to earn benefits that would last until the end of the 52-week period. The evaluation estimated that 1 in 20 seasonal jobs ended at a point when sufficient benefits are obtained to fill the income requirements for the remainder of the year. If the seasonal worker was employed for fewer weeks, then there would be some weeks in the year for which he would not be receiving any income.

From this evaluation, it could be argued that many seasonal workers would be less likely to work only the minimum number of weeks to qualify for EI, than the non-seasonal. This is because if they worked only the minimum number of weeks, there would be weeks in the year for which they would not receive any income. Non-seasonal workers would not face this constraint and would be more likely to work just the minimum number of weeks.

A number reasons were suggested, by Green and Sargent (1995), why this analysis would not be directly applicable to all seasonal workers. For one, it assumes that the seasonal worker has complete control over the number of weeks of work. This is of course not applicable in all cases, as the demands of employers will play a significant role in determining the number of weeks worked. However, Green and Sargent (1995) do show that it may be in the employers interest to come to some work arrangement with the seasonal employees so as to maximise EI benefits received.

Another complicating factor is that some seasonal workers may find it desirable to minimise on the number of weeks that they are unemployed. Apart from the natural desire to work, they may want to avoid the deterioration of work-skills caused by prolonged periods of unemployment. There may also be a concern that the periods of unemployment would cause them to appear less valuable to future employers.

EI Reform has a Significant Impact

COEP evidence suggests that EI reform has had a significant impact on the EI eligibility. This primarily comes as a result of the move to the hours legislation. Table 7 below summarises these impacts. Basically seasonal workers are less likely to be eligible for EI than non-seasonal but this gap narrows as a result of EI-Reform. The first row gives the percentage point difference between seasonal work compared to non-seasonal work. For the sample, selected seasonal workers who lost their job were 5.6 percentage points less likely to have enough hours to be eligible for EI compared to other workers. They were also entitled to 4.59⁴ less weeks of entitlement, as given in the fifth row.

The estimates do not change by much if seasonal workers are compared before and after EI reform for eligibility. However, the number of weeks of entitlements goes up by 1.6. These basic results, given in Rows 2 and 6, constitute the simple baseline impact of EI reform on seasonal workers

If only those seasonal workers who have less than 30 hours are examined, it is found that they lost significant amounts of eligibility, as they are 21 percentage points less likely to qualify for EI after reform and if they do qualify they receive 2.6 less weeks of entitlements. Rows 4 and 8 were added in response to a concern that was expressed that seasonal workers who made less than $12,000 a year were even more adversely affected by EI reform. The above table shows this appears to be true, although at this time it is not clear what impact EI reform could have on seasonal workers over and above the hours effect. Hence, this conclusion should be regarded as tentative at this time.

Footnotes

2	The predominance of men in seasonal work was noted in Green and Riddell (1999).
3	An individual would maximise their income by working the entire year, however for a seasonal worker this is assumed to not be an option.
4	The estimate of 4.59 weeks difference in entitlements between seasonal and non-seasonal is highly sensitive to the definitions of the data employed. It is possible that this difference is as low as 1 week using a definition derived purely from the administrative data