The debate was gentlemanly, the speakers complimentary to each other. From the July print magazine.
But Stuart Lowden and Richard Evans argue for quite different things – for and against a maximum 48-hour week for security officers. Stuart, Managing Director of London-based guarding firm Wilson James, spoke on the subject at November’s annual SITO conference; from the floor, Richard, MD of Warwick-based The Watch, disagreed. Prof Martin Gill arranged for the men to slug it out – only verbally! Both men made passionate cases which ranged not only over working hours and conditions but what sort of guarding industry we can achieve – or hope to.
Replying to Stuart Lowden’s case for a shorter working week for security officers, Richard Evans replied with philosophical and practical arguments, and a regional as opposed to a metropolitan perspective.
I don’t want to force anybody to work more than 48 hours a week – but I don’t want to restrict anybody to working 48 hours or less, said Richard Evans. He argued it is a basic human right to work as we wish. The European Working Time Directive requires eight hour maximum night shifts and 11-hour rest breaks, so in a 24-hour scenario all shifts must effectively be eight hours. If Britain loses its opt-out from the directive, an officer must work six out of seven days – “who on earth wants that?” he said. Most employees, as well as employers, want to keep the UK opt-out, he said.
Four instead of three
Supposing we are allowed to keep the 12-hour shift, but have to restrict the working week to 48 hours. A site covered 24-7, 168 hours, will then need four officers rather than three (working 56 hours). As Stuart Lowden pointed out, such a pattern would mean a 42-hour week, with four days on and four off. Where will the employees come from? he asked. What Richard Evans called the ‘tortuous’ Security Industry Authority licence process will further decrease labour. Responsible guarding companies will not find staff to man decent customers’ sites, he added. Quite apart from the Working Time Directive, Richard Evans feared that what he called ‘misdirected voices from within our own industry’ were going to blame long hours rather than poor management as the root of service failures. He criticised ‘ill-considered social engineering’, making the point that guarding was founded on the need for night-watchmen, keeping an eye on premises when no-one else is around. Long and anti-social hours formed the basis of manned guarding. The 56-hour roster must be defended with vigour, he added. The 56-hour average – maximum 60 hours – roster is based on three days, three nights, or six days and three off, no more tiring than four 12-hour shifts making 48, he argued. The SIA will add six per cent to the bill, without a penny more for the security officer, he claimed. The perceived wisdom, from those who have won contracts consistently art the wrong price and found themselves unable to make a profit, is that the client will pay for the extra, SIA costs. This is fanciful nonsense, Richard Evans said, as fanciful as the belief that everyone would pay their poll tax.
‘Slay this monster’
He gave examples of responsible, happy security officers – who do not want to be members of the wider police family – who work 56, or 60 hours a week. Richard Evans summed up by warning that the imposition of a 48-hour week could prove to be the final ingredient in the destruction of our industry: “Ladies and gentlemen,” he concluded, “we must slay this monster.”
Four instead of three
During questions from the floor, regional differences in guarding, and points of agreement between the two dramatically different speakers, emerged. Mike Edwards, Managing Director of Swallow Security Services, asked about officers’ loss of earnings; if staff were working five 12-hour shifts a week, and were required to drop a shift, that was not money they would easily replace; and wages could not be maintained at their former level for fewer hours. Richard Evans made the point that his company works with West Midlands manufacturers, already ekeing out a living. He and Stuart Lowden agreed that the eight-hour shift did not work. Stuart Lowden suggested that it was difficult to pitch a 48-hour officer week in the North and Midlands, but one can in London. Keith Mitchell, of Preston Fishergate, asked about where employees and employers have agreed contraacts for more than 48 hours. Richard Evans questioned whether British employment law or the Working Time Directive applies if someone working 60 hours is taken down to 48. Stuart Lowden said that Wilson James has had the problem from time to time when taking on new work; the firm’s approach is to put people on the 42-hour pattern and allow people to settle at their own level. Roughly one third of people will be happy to do 42 hours; a third will do 48; and a third will do all the hours they can get.
Not much change
What of the Working Time Directive – will Britain lose its opt-out clause? From the floor, David Dickinson, as Chief Executive of the BSIA, did not vote in the show of hands which before and after the debate saw a majority in favour of Stuart Lowden’s position. He did say that he and SIA chief exec John Saunders met with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry. There the view was that nothing much will happen on the 48-hour question – because of German and French economic problems from their short working week. p
The (maximum) 48-hour week for security officers is a vital, first step towards improving the industry, Stuart Lowden told the PRCI conference.
He began by setting the scene, what he called a ‘fairly evil cocktail’ of long hours and shift patterns that mean offices live a ‘fairly uncomfortable existence’. Speaking of the manager and director audience, he took on the point that they, too, work 50 and 60-hour weeks. It’s not the same as what officers do, he argued: “We do have some flexibility in how we work those hours; we don’t have to work a regular rotation of nights and days.”
You really want to join?
Is this industry one you would really want to join? he asked. Quality is very much the exception, rather than the rule: “So we have some way to go.” He advocated a 42-hour roster rather than a 48-hour one “which is a real pain”. Wages are uplifted, so that the pay for a 48-hour week is practically similar to what officers used to earn for a 56-hour week. He added: “To make it work, you have to restrict overtime. And again, there is no point in doing this if you allow them [officers] to have other jobs. The 48-hour week, as I understand it, is very much on the lines of a 42-hour roster with a bit of controlled overtime.” The benefits, he went on, are a stable workforce, which leads to gains in training and staff development and ultimately in value for money. He did admit that there are cases where a shorter, 48-hour week will put up costs with little way of avoiding it. A 42-hour pattern allows paired shifts rather than day shifts-days off-night shifts-nights off with the constant effect on the human body. Wilson James operates a standard 16-day cycle of days, and a 16-day cycle of nights, four days on, four days off, so that the body gets some chance to get used to the cycle of nights and days. It also makes it easier for the officer to plan their social life. He added: “It’s a far more robust solutiuon; you are dragging people from outside who aren’t trained and you aren’t asking people to work even more than their 56-hours to work holiday cover.
Night sleep
As for those working night shifts, Stuart Lowden said that they never get the same amount of sleep, because it is not natural to work nights; is it a surprise that someone on a night shift is a little bit ratty? and they cannot possibly be alert, or as alert as they should be. A 48-hour week creates what he called a ‘positive employment cycle’ where management time is released to invest in people, who enjoy their job.
Way forward
He moved on to recruitment: “Put yourself in the place of the recruit coming to our industry for the first time. You have just explained to them the wonders of the industry and the shift pattern they have moved on to. They aren’t necessarily used to working 12-hour shifts or working extended duties and they are looking at security compared to catering or engineering or being a warden. And you are going to talk them through the shift pattern. Is this a business I want to be in?” he asked. “And I just don’t think the old way, the traditional way is the way forward.” A 42-hour pattern and a 48-hour week (and no forced overtime) improves the image of guarding and makes it much more competitive compared to other industries, he said. Guarding firms do not need to be worried about nicking others’ staff, he said; firms need to be worried about whether enough people are coming into the industry in the first place. “The biggest challenge to us is where are we going to find our staff? because that is the only thing that matters to us as a business, and clients; where are staff going to come from?” With old ways, guarding does not have a hope of attracting recruits, or keeping them.
Enough opportunity
On occasion such a change in hours will cost more; nor will technology be able to replace guards necessarily where guarding becomes too dear an option. But, Stuart Lowden said, there is more than enough opportunity for guarding companies to remodel how they deliver their solutions. “Security is a grudge purchase because people see they are getting nothing. People don’t mind paying more money if they see something in exchange. So we as an industry have got to change and add some value to our service; then the client might give us more things to do, make better use of our staff to make their jobs more enriched.” Wilson James has been carrying out such hours for six and a half years, and has seen gains in staff retention, and a rising investment in training, translating into clients willing to give jobs to security officers they would not have previously; such as reception tasks. Winding up, calling for the industry to make a ‘leap of faith’, he said that he believes 48-hours is the first step towards a needed 42-hour week. He warned that if guarding does not embrace change in advance of staff licences, guarding is doomed. p
Peter Hermitage, who stepped into the chairman’s seat at the SIA in December after Molly Meacher’s sudden departure, gave his views to the PRCI conference of a security industry ‘that is to be transformed’.
He mentioned the timetable for licences by sector: wheel clampers will roll out ‘towards the end of 2004’; security guards – ‘a real test’ according to Hermitage – in 2005, which includes manned guarding, cash in transit and personal protection. Also next year the SIA will look at an approved contractors scheme. While he did not go into details on the content or timing of such a scheme, he did say it would be likely there would be a commercial advantage to being a member of the scheme. (As reported last issue, the first word from the SIA is that the scheme will be voluntary rather than compulsory. Manned guarding attenders at the event put the case for a compulsory scheme to Professional Security: they feared a voluntary scheme would allow clients to carry on buying guarding by price, whereas a compulsory scheme would be a level playing field.)
Industry snapshots
Giving a snapshot of guarding, Peter Hermitage spoke of staff turnover of up to 150 per cent (yet he described coming across a company with a staff turnover of four per cent – how were they achieving that? he asked); in some sectors, up to 25 per cent on minimum wage (and some below it); and companies competing on price not quality – “and that is an unworkable business model”, he added. Margins are under unsustainable pressure; quality is, all too often, driven out of the product; and hence there is ‘contract promiscuity’ and ‘cowboy contracts’; negligible investment in training and development; poor supplier-buyer relationships; an emerging recruitment void and skills shortages (not just a security industry problem, he admitted); and low credibility. Laying down a challenge to industry bodies, he asked how are they going to come together to really represent the industry.
Contract understanding
Contract promiscuity he defined as guarding companies buying contracts, knowing they are not going to make a profit; and reckoning at some stage as regulation comes in, that they will be able to cut the opposition out. And as for cowboy contracts he asked whether contractors understand what they are entering into; and who is setting up the contract? someone who understands security – or it is driven by the client’s procurement people?
On the police family
Among the SIA’s aims, he spoke of ‘strengthening the extended police family by encouraging and supporting further engagement of the private security industry’. A former career police officer, he retired as Chief Constable, Director of National Police Training in 1999, and holds the Queen’s Police Medal. He told the event: “We have been in discussion with ACPO and with representatives of the industry and the Home Office to look at the opportunities that are created by not just this Act [the Private Security Industry Act, that led to the SIA] but the Police Reform Act [that allows chief constables to accredit bodies including guarding firms]. There are things happening now that five years ago would have been somewhat unimaginable.” He gave the example of police forces awarding contracts to security companies to look after detention areas. (While he did not name any examples, in a 30-year, £90m, Sussex Police PFI project, Reliance Security are building and running custody facilities.) He added: “You have non-police officers involved in taking statements in murder inquiries; you have collaboration between the private security industry and the police in places like shopping centres; Manchester is a very good example of that, where they are working together, using technology together, and actually beginning to share intelligence. There is a realisation that private security can play a role.”
New professionalism
The SIA licence – showing someone is a fit and proper person,and holds relevant, tested skills – will introduce a new base-line of professionalism, he said. He described the approced contractors scheme as an SIA rubber stamp to say that a company is a good one. That should be a very powerful mechanism, Peter Hermitage said. He went on to raise the question of whether Government departments sould only employ approved security companies. As to the rumbling question of whether in-house security officers ought to be licenced besides contract guards, he spoke of ‘very strong arguments in that direction’, while not coming down firmly in favour of bringing in-house guards into the SIA regime. He did say that the SIA was putting ‘something’ to ministers in the very near future.
New professionalism
Like other senior figures in the SIA, Peter Hermitage was alive to the need for the regulator’s compliance and investigation arm to catch the bad guys. As for the roll-out of the first licences – for door staff in the Isle of Wight and Hampshire – he spoke of a new breed of door supervisers that become part of the business team. He was speaking before the June 4 deadline when door staff in that first region must have a licence or break the law, but after the SIA stated that applications for forms were not in the expected numbers. He said: “It wasn’t until actually we started to say to the licenced trade ‘do you realise of course that if you don’t encourage this [door staff to get SIA badges] you could find your premises closing, you could find the conditions of your public entertainments licence not met, and if that happens the police can look at what happens and can make judgements, go before the magistrates and you could find yourself out of business’ – what was interesting, as soon as we started to push that message across, the number of application forms went up.” As licences become the law, a consequence could be, he suggested, a price premium for door supervisers, ‘and some interesting market adjustments’. “But the message is, we do actually mean business,” he said. Replying later to a question from Jerry Hart of PRCI, Peter Hermitage spoke of ‘huge collaboration from the police service’ in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight area, because police can see a win-win situation with regulated door staff; not only to do with disorder on the streets, but staff in pubs and clubs who understand what they are doing.
Where do we go from here?
Next speaker was David Dickinson, BSIA chief executive.
He began by picking up on a point of Peter Hermitage’s: the call for various industry bodies to come together. David Dickinson endorsed creating something like a ‘parliament of the industry – preferably without the Opposition’. While his speech was optimistic – titled ‘looking forward to better value’ – he did not mince words about the present. Would we start from here? “Of course we wouldn’t.” Looking back to 1988, he spoke of average guarding margins of 27 per cent and inspection visits not less than once a week. Today, such visits might aveage once a month. He described also a huge fall in training and improvement courses – not because guarding companies do not want to do such training, but because firms cannot afford it. BSIA research of members last year suggested security officer turnover was running at 59 to 61 per cent. Yet officers say pay is number three on their wish-list; number one is the way they are managed. On the evidence from the Continent, when countries have licenced security staff, wages will escalate, maybe by 15 to 20 per cent in two or three years. Whether a high of 25 per cent, or a low of seven to 10pc, do not get a licence, those people will need to be replaced. Private security will have to draw recruits from a new labour market; and will have to look at the way contracts are structured, because these in-comers will want much more job satisfaction. He gave two anecdotes suggesting the public and private sector both have some re-thinking to do about security as a boardroom issue. First, he reported a panic ’phone call last year from the Civil Contingencies Unit at the Cabinet office, because of a possible cash in transit staff strike (which did not happen). What were the alternatives to CIT armoured vehicles? The civil servants’ idea of using vans instead did not hold water; but it was apparent that without the CIT sector, in three days the UK would become very short of money. Second, he gave the story of a financial institution whose security manager wanted to put in personal protection measures, in the light of the Suzy Lamplugh murder. The spend would have been less than the company chairman’s salary increase the previous year. He was refused, on cost grounds; he asked if the chairman would talk to the press if something went wrong. The manager was later made redundant.
Policing, not police, family
Like Peter Hermitage earlier, David Dickinson discussed the Police Reform Act. He quoted former chief constable now consultant Richard Childs’ warning that police were withdrawing to their core functions and would only do those things you need a warrant card to do. A vacuum would be filled, by what David Dickinson called the wider policing family (rather than ‘the wider police family’, a phrase much used by the Home Office). He described the SIA approved contractor scheme as ‘probably the nest thing that will come out of the [Private Security Industry] Act’; and added that the BSIA is seeking to persuade chief police officers that there should be links between the scheme and the police accreditation of community safety bodies, under the Police Reform Act (a topic also for Peter Hermitage). As for such private security and police co-operation, some see it as a ‘tricky Government ruse to get the private security industry to pay for policing’, David Dickinson said – but it isn’t, he added. Rather than guarding companies seeking to make staff uniforms and vehicles look like the police’s, should the guarding industry have its own livery and colour? might it add value if private security had its own identity, that the public could recognise? he asked. He spoke of street warden schemes, run by private security companies, where wardens get things done and are appreciated by people. On recruiting, David Dickinson said Security is going to have to compete for staff with the armed forces, fire and police services, and not least various police community support officer schemes. (A theme reported last issue at the IFSEC launch of a brochure for Jobcentres, called Why Security.) The industry will have to compete on terms and conditions, and job interest.
Chris Smith, head of regional security Europe Middle East Africa for HSBC, gave a multi-national, banking end user’s point of view.
The threat of terrorism to HSBC is real, and live, and his board has an expectation that he will do something about it: so Chris Smith told the conference. He admitted that he is in the privileged position of having a budget that allows some flexibility, and the employing of security companies in ways that smaller organisations cannot.
