open Secondary menu

Survey of Election Officers Following the 42nd Federal General Election

6. Working Conditions

This section presents findings on election officers' overall evaluation of working conditions.

Overall Working Conditions

Most of the election officers reported that their working conditions were good (TOP2: 94%). Officers in British Columbia were significantly less likely to report good working conditions (BTM2: 9%) compared with officers in other regions. Worth noting is that officers in British Columbia (48%) and Quebec (56%) were less likely to find their working conditions just "very good."

Table 43: Overall working conditions, by region
Q52: Overall, would you say that your working conditions were...? Region
ATL (n=346) QC (n=924) ON (n=1385) MAN (n=154) SASK (n=115) AB (n=39)* BC (n=423) TER (n=115) Overall (n=3503)
%
TOP2 96 94 94 98 99 96 91 99 94
BTM2 4 6 6 2 1 4 9 1 6
Very good 74+ 48+ 69+ 69+ 78+ 66 56 71+ 63
Somewhat good 21- 46+ 25- 29 21- 30 34 28 32
Not very good 3 5 4 0 1 3 8 1 4
Not at all good 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 1
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Elections officers who worked at a polling station on an Aboriginal reserve or at a seniors' home (TOP2: 96%, each) were significantly more likely to report good working conditions than officers who worked in student residences (TOP2: 92%). Further, officers who worked in student residences were significantly more likely to report that their working conditions were "not very good" (6%) compared with officers who worked in Aboriginal reserves and senior homes or long-term care polls (3%, each).

Table 44: Overall working conditions, by polling station
Q52: Overall, would you say that your working conditions were...? Polling Station
Abo. Reserve (n=282) Sen. / LT Care (n=797) Stud. Res. (n=466) Other (n=1958) Overall (n=3503)
%
TOP2 96 96 92 94 94
BTM2 4 4 8+ 6 6
Very good 73+ 62 61 63 63
Somewhat good 23- 34 32 32 32
Not very good 3 3 6+ 4 4
Not at all good 1 1 2 1 1
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0

In regard to the type of polling station, there were no significant differences in how working conditions were reported between officers who worked in advance, ordinary, both advance and ordinary, or mobile polls. However, officers who worked in the advance poll were significantly more likely to report working conditions were "not at all good" (3%) than those who worked both at advance and ordinary polls (0%).

In regard to the positions of election officers, registration officers were significantly more likely to report good working conditions (TOP2: 97%) than the other officer roles, with the exception of information officers.

Table 45: Overall working conditions, by type of poll and staffing position
Q52: Overall, would you say that your working conditions were...? Type of Poll Staffing Position  
Adv.
(n=232) 		Ord.
(n=2997) 		Adv. + ord.
(n=224) 		Mobile
(n=49)* 		DRO
(n=1261) 		IO
(n=421) 		CPS
(n=245) 		RegO
(n=315) 		PC
(n=1261) 		Overall
(n=3503)
%
TOP2 94 94 94 97 94 96 93 97+ 94 94
BTM2 6 6 6 3 6 4 7 3 6 6
Very good 59- 62 70+ 68 63 61 65 67+ 62 63
Somewhat good 34 32 25- 29 32 35 28- 30 32 32
Not very good 3 4 6 3 4 3 6 2 5 4
Not at all good 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Officers who reported that their working conditions were "not very good" or "not at all good" (n=196) provided the following top five reasons: lack of break (29%), place of work (22%), number of hours of work (22%), complexity of unique cases (17%), and inadequate pay (6%).

By staffing position, poll clerks (29%) and deputy returning officers (21%) were significantly more likely to report "number of hours worked" as a reason for why they considered the working conditions "not very good" or "not at all good" compared with registration officers (1%). Deputy returning officers (40%), information officers (33%), and central poll supervisors (29%) were significantly more likely to report their "place as work" as their reason than were poll clerks (1%). Finally, poll clerks (52%) were significantly more likely to find the "lack of break" as their reason than were deputy returning officers (6%) and central poll supervisors (17%).

Table 46: Why working conditions were "not very good" or "not at all good," overall

Q53: Why do you say that?

Overall (n=196)
%
Lack of break 29
Place of work 22
Number of hours of work 22
Complexity of unique cases 17
Salary not adequate 6
Tools 2
Complexity of tools 0
DK/Refused 2