In the first of a series of 12 articles aimed at exposing current deficiencies within the manned guarding industry – and suggesting radical solutions to remedy those problems – Terry O'Neil explains why it's high time that contractors said 'No' to clients who persist in asking for corners to be cut on security contracts.
Recruitment is the lifeblood of the contract manned guarding industry. The recruitment and retention of good quality staff is the differentiator between a good company and a bad one. If we measure the health of an industry on its ability to attract the right calibre of staff, it's little surprise that – to use medical parlance – most of us feel the security industry is in need of a doctor.

The sad fact is that, in general terms, this industry is still in the dark ages. How can we hope to attract high calibre staff when the basic working week is still 56 hours, and when a significant number of officers – either voluntarily or otherwise – often work a 72 or 84-hour week? There'll be those pundits who will argue that wage rates have improved, but measured against what exactly? There is still an ominous lack of benefits associated with even a good wage rate to encourage any individual to build a long-term career in the industry.

It's important to realise that contracts with poor terms and conditions are not just the confine of companies outside the BSIA and the IPSA. It's incomprehensible that the major players continue to harbour contracts that should play no part in their portfolio, but they do. These are contracts which should not be sanctioned by the Trade Associations or the Accreditation bodies inspecting against ISO 9000 or the relevant British Standards.

So why do they hang on to them?

Accelerating the recruitment problem
The argument will always be that such contracts make some sort of contribution to overheads. The reality is that they not only accelerate the recruitment problem, but they also ensure burn-out of already overstretched contract support management. Very often, there's a subsequent decline in the guarding contractor's reputation (not to mention those Associations and Inspectorates responsible for validating their business).

From The Security Watchdog's point of view, our on-site audits have given us a much better feel for overall wage rates than can be obtained anywhere else in the industry. We cannot see the value of the continual statistics apparently sought after by various bodies in the sector to justify claims that average wage rates are on the increase.

Take a simple example. The minimum wage rate for a security officer working in the Greater London area in 2002 should be no less than £6.50 per hour (based on a 56-hour average working week). Statistics showing that a given company manages to average this level of wage rate ignore the fact that there are far too many cases of security companies paying £5.00 or so per hour, offsetting the quality rates of £7.50 or £8.00. Why don't the prestigious contractors just get rid of these unworkable contracts and, in so doing, help to drive hourly rates upwards?

The Security Watchdog challenges the Trade Associations to adopt a 'name-and-shame' policy on 'bad' guarding contracts as the only practical means of ridding the industry of its current low pay levels. Name the companies having the courage to throw such contracts onto the fire, and shame those which pick them up without a very substantial improvement in overall terms and conditions.

The Security Watchdog challenges the Trade Associations to adopt a ‘name-and-shame’ policy on ‘bad’ guarding contracts as the only practical means of ridding the industry of low pay levels

The overriding effect of these 'bad' contracts is a recruitment problem. Not only are there disillusioned security officers already working in the industry – wondering (particularly when they read the advertisements for staff in both the local and national press) why they are not enjoying similar terms and conditions – but there is also a whole army of men and women who have left the industry because of the conditions they had to endure. Ex-officers who will be quick to condemn the industry whenever they get the chance.

Time for some home truths
How, then, might we minimise this negative publicity? First of all, contractors must begin to tell their clients a few home truths and not continually assure them that 'any request can be met'. To revert to our earlier example, a wage rate of £5.00-£5.50 in Greater London combined with very few staff benefits will, for the most part, engender much higher levels of officer churn during the contract period.

On average, the staff will almost certainly change at least three times in a calendar year – always assuming that they can be obtained in the first place! Contractors need to press this point with their clients, and The Security Watchdog will be only-too-pleased to support them in their argument.

We make this plea to end users... If you genuinely want to play a part in improving the contract manned guarding industry, and receive a quality service, be prepared to pay a proper and fair rate for the job. The charge-out rate needs to reflect a realistic wage rate and sufficient margin that will allow the contractor to provide – among other things – an employer's contribution to an officer's pension scheme, a sick pay scheme and life assurance.

Embracing the Working Time Directive
There's little doubt that, without the clients' contribution to the overall raising of standards, the industry will continue to wrestle with the mixed reputation from which it has suffered over far too many years.

The advent of licensing and the establishment of the Security Industry Authority will most certainly raise the industry's profile, allowing the Trade Associations to revert to their proper role. However, these events in themselves will not necessarily attract better people into the industry. Quite simply, we have to embrace the spirit of the Working Time Directive and allow the improved terms and conditions that will flow from such action to do the rest.