If the UK's contract guarding companies truly accept that the Working Time Directive has a significant part to play in enhancing the private security sector's image among its client base, how might they put the legislation's basic principles into practice? SMT examines the overriding need for developing a positive perception cycle.
October 1998 will long be remembered as a watershed month in the UK's legislative history. That is when the Working Time Directive was made law. The main purpose of this particular piece of legislation, of course, was to give employees – not least those in the security sector – a guaranteed minimum quality of life in the workplace.

Many of you will be well versed with the Directive's main proposals, which centre on: a maximum working week of 48 hours, shifts of no longer than 13 hours' duration, at least one full day off each week, rest breaks during the day, paid holidays, free health assessments (for those working on nightshifts) and a maximum shift duration of eight hours for night workers.

It's important to examine how security company and industry leaders reacted at the time the legislation passed into law. And what has transpired as a result.

Conscious of the industry's poor image, one might have assumed that such moves would be welcomed with open arms. After all, here was a mechanism that could be used as a vehicle to drive through positive change, and raise standards in the private security sector at a stroke. Unfortunately, the Working Time Directive was not seen in this light.

Instead, industry leaders fought to maintain the status quo. At first they lobbied for exemption, hoping to wriggle out of any obligation to improve the terms and conditions of serving security officers. Having failed in their endeavours, they have subsequently exploited an available loophole in the legislation – a personal opt out that allows officers to work in excess of 48 hours per week, as long as they sign an appropriate waiver.

With little or no movement on wage rates, staff had no choice but to waive their rights if they were to receive a living wage. Employers then had carte blanche to continue the practice of scheduling 56 or 60-hour working weeks.

Why, though, did the security companies take the easy way out? It may have been a fear of the unknown, a shortsightedness that persuaded them to cling on to current practices for dear life (however Victorian they might be).

Or was it merely a case of being selfish? The knowledge that change would be difficult, and might have an impact on the bottom line?

There can be little doubt that the security companies underestimated the intelligence, wider awareness and basic humanity of their client base, many of whom – despairing from the lack of direction from the industry at large – have taken matters into their own hands. The end result? They've embraced the 48-hour working week.

An overriding need for change
Why, you might ask, must the industry change its stance here? We know how much effort has been put behind the drive to raise standards. There has been a significant investment in officer training, the Private Security Industry Act is now in place and there are signs that the industry is starting to attract a higher calibre of manager to its ranks. There is certainly a great deal more IT literacy among managers, who are now skilled in business techniques and aware of the need for sound customer service skills.

That said, what self-respecting individual is going to look at the security industry as a worthwhile career when, at interview, the harassed recruitment officer explains the full horrors of the working life that awaits?

How can the job of a security officer be anything other than a stop-gap until something better comes along?

It's this perception of the industry that's so hard to break. Like many service industries, the security industry functions within what can best be described as a Perception Cycle (see figure 1). A customer seeking to buy a service, whatever that service may be, probably has a preconceived perception about that service. This perception tends to determine his or her expectations of the service. In turn, these expectations dictate the level of investment the customer is willing to make in order to satisfy these expectations, which will then drive the quality of service the customer receives. This quality of service reinforces the customer's original perceptions, and the cycle is renewed.

Alas, the security industry is currently trapped within a Negative Perception Cycle (figure 2). The industry's poor image creates similarly low expectations among its present and potential customer base. These expectations are reflected in the way in which the service is purchased – as a grudge buy, rather than an important one. Since the service is price-driven – or perhaps because expectations are so low – tenders become prescriptive by way of ensuring that minimum standards of service are delivered.

Inevitably, the level of investment made by the supplier reflects the way in which it perceives the service is being purchased. In a price-driven process, the only way to win any contract is to keep wages at a low level, training to the bare minimum and operate a harsh, disciplinarian style of management. Hours of work must be long if staff are to be provided with a living wage.

With such a low level of investment in the service being offered, the consequences are all-too-predictable. Security officer turnover is very high, with estimates varying between 40-70% per annum. Lacking motivation or reward, staff will frequently do only what they have to, adopting a 'not my job'-type attitude to their duties. Managers will have their hands full dealing with a continuous stream of labour issues and, as such, have little or no time to offer their clients any added value. The customer receives exactly what he or she expected, and what was paid for.

Such a sorry tale has been repeating itself in the security sector for the last 20 years or more. For all the efforts that have been made to clean up the industry, the status quo will evidently continue for the foreseeable future – unless this vicious cycle can be broken.

Breaking the negative cycle
What if the cycle could be broken? Could we not replace the negative cycle with one that's positive for all concerned?

Let's enter the cycle at the investment phase instead of the perception phase, and let's assume that we introduce some positive working practices (applying the principles of the Working Time Directive). The perception cycle might then take on a different form (see figure 3, overleaf).

A new operating approach based on competitive wages, modern working practices and a much broader range of training creates a strong foundation on which to build. To this must be added a more supportive, proactive management style, one that motivates and develops staff and encourages them to build a career within the security industry.

The guarding companies and the clients that employ their services must take a long-term view. They should act now to embrace the spirit of the Working Time Directive, which is nothing other than a blatant attempt to create positive working practices

The benefits arising from such a fresh approach are immediate, not to say quite dramatic. The recruitment market will open up to a wider range and style of applicant, staff turnover will drop to 15% or 20% per annum and the security officers will be more flexible in their approach to work (and far more willing to accept additional duties and responsibilities).

Released from the burden of continually 'fighting fires' (and at last allowed time for training in their own right), support management teams can then start to offer clients a well-rounded, solutions-based service. Not surprisingly, this style of service will be perceived quite differently by the client. It's viewed as professional, and customer-focused. At last, the service will generate a tangible value for the end user.

Once the perception of security companies' services becomes a positive one, the whole attitude towards the buying process will change as well. If security is then seen as an important aspect of a business and its risk management programme, the purchase of a security service will be driven by value.

The Working Time Directive
If we accept that the principles behind the Working Time Directive have a significant part to play in developing a positive perception cycle, how might the security companies put them into practice?

Let's start with the cornerstone of the industry – namely 24-hour cover. The traditional approach involves a team of three officers, each working an average number of 56 hours per week, usually on a day and night roster. There are a variety of different roster patterns (including, for example, three day shifts, three night shifts and three days off). Where members of that team are sick or on leave, it's common practice for their colleagues to cover for them on an overtime bases (thus increasing their average working week to 60 hours or more).

The simplest way to introduce the 48-hour working week is to deploy a four-team system, each officer having a basic working week of 42 hours. To this 42-hour working week is added a layer of controlled overtime, equivalent to one 12-hour shift per fortnight. The 42-hour pattern can be achieved in a variety of ways, but the most popular is a 'four on, four off' cycle. This cycle may then be repeated on a 'day staff, night staff' basis, or can be rotated to alternate between days and nights.

The greatest advantage of the four-team system is the huge improvement to an employee's quality of life. Instead of six or seven straight shifts of duty, a given officer can look forward to a break after only four days' work. Overtime becomes a matter of personal choice, fitting into a four-day rest period.

For the client, the major advantage is the increased core security team dedicated to its requirements. For example, rather than having a part-trained relief officer standing in for holidays and sickness, it's more likely that the relief officer will be a member of the core guarding team, working overtime on top of a 42-hour week rather than a 56-hour week.

Even when officers do work overtime, at an average working week of 48 hours as opposed to 56 or 60 they are likely to be fitter and fresher for the task at hand.

Major obstacles to progress
The prime objection raised about the introduction of a 48-hour working week is the likelihood that costs will rise. There's no doubt there will be occasions when the 48-hour week will be more expensive (for example, where a given building requires a single officer on a 24-hour cycle, or where the tasks required of an officer are extremely limited). Here, we must acknowledge that there is little or no scope for efficiencies or added value, and costs will rise.

A further obstacle is the double standards that exist within a number of otherwise caring companies. These businesses embrace the new ways of working for their own staff, yet often pay scant attention to the well-being of the staff employed by their contractors. There seems little understanding that contracted staff need motivation every bit as much as those working in-house.

Of course, the greatest obstacle to change is the very fear of change itself – particularly on the part of the security providers. For the most part they remain uncertain as to how they should tackle this subject, and how they can persuade their clients that the 48-hour week might mean anything other than a huge increase in capital outlay for little or no return.

In spite of this, there are many ways in which the security companies can use the Working Time Directive to their advantage – and offset the impact of high labour rates into the bargain. The simplest response is to develop higher quality security staff as an integral part of a total security and risk management strategy. Rather than being seen as little more than manpower supply agencies, the progressive security companies need to become more innovative, more aware of the best use of new technologies and far more committed to delivering fully-integrated security solutions. Solutions that add genuine value to a client's business.

Where we should be adding value is in the broader areas of risk management, including health and safety and fire prevention, or front-of-house services (such as manning reception areas and/or Help Desks). In other words, developing the security officer workforce so that its members become a productive force, not simply a drain on the client's overheads.

If the industry provides better quality staff, training them and encouraging them to stay in the sector, surely those members of staff will then be more efficient and predisposed to accept extra duties? The fact that officers will be more loyal and committed to the tasks at hand will encourage the security companies to invest more in their training programmes, which in turn creates further efficiencies. A positive cycle such as this will yield manpower savings, either as a result of having to employ fewer security officers or less staff from elsewhere within the in-house facilities team.

What of the huge, intangible benefits that a superior security service brings to a client's business? Can you really put a price on image and genuine commitment?

Driving change in the industry
There's little doubt that change will come. Whether it is change forced upon the industry or change that it drives through itself is up to the industry to decide.

Guarding companies and the clients that employ their services must take a long-term view. They must act now to embrace the spirit of the Working Time Directive, in particular the 48-hour working week. They should recognise the principles of the Directive for what they are – a blatant attempt to create positive working practices. Practices that can be used to mutual advantage by client and service provider alike.

Downloads