ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Since the Working Time Directive became law in October 1998, there has been much speculation as to whether it will have a negative or positive effect on the security industry. Many security specialists have viewed the legislation as a necessary stepping stone to improving the quality and, therefore, reputation of security service providers – while others have noted the potential problems associated with restricting the hours worked for all those involved, be they the employees, employers or clients of guarding contractors.

When the Working Time Directive was being drawn up, the main aim of the legislation had been to improve the working conditions for all employees in the 'shift work' sector. The idea was to put an end to the exploitation of what was seen as cheap labour, and bring about a better quality of life for workers.

In turn, it was hoped that this would lead to improved working standards and productivity, and greater company loyalty.

How the European Union envisaged the Directive would tackle these issues can be summarised thus:

• Working weeks to consist of no more than 48 hours in a 17-week period;
  
• Shifts to comprise a maximum of 13 hours during the day, and eight hours at night;
  
• A minimum of 11 hours' consecutive rest in any 24-hour period;
  
• 20 minutes of rest where the working day is longer than six hours;
  
• A minimum of four weeks' paid holiday per annum, and free healthcare assessments for all night-time workers.

The idea behind such principles was to bring shift workers' rights into line with other office workers/professionals, and to discourage poor working practices that give industries like the private security sector (and manned guarding in particular) such a poor reputation.

For some time now, security officers have been linked to stories of moonlighting, double-shift working and excessive amounts of overtime. More often than not, they've been portrayed in the wider media as being incompetent or corruptible.

Much has been made of those incidences where rogue employees have escaped screening only to be the 'insider' on a job, or where officers pulling double shifts have been less-than-alert when security breaches occur.

As with many media items, the worst cases are written about as if they are representative of the industry as a whole – and reinforce the poor image corporate groups have of guarding and other similar services while at the same time lending support to the notion that increasing hourly rates for guards is not justifiable.

This is very much part of the problem. Where wages have been kept low, security officers have tended to work longer hours in order to provide themselves with a living wage. The guarding roles in themselves have often been static, with very few interesting or demanding tasks. Fighting tiredness and sheer boredom have been part and parcel of the job.

Many security companies will in fact argue that this situation has arisen purely because of clients driving down prices, thereby forcing some companies to keep wages low, reduce the amount of money set aside for training or cut back on administration costs (covering screening or team management, for instance).

Of course, in the long run this only extenuates the problem facing security companies. Lacking either motivation or reward, officers' company loyalty is slowly eroded, attendance at site is poor and staff turnover increases (so, too, do the attendant recruitment and administration costs).

Whether the poor service caused clients to re-think the prices they were willing to pay, or whether clients demanding lower prices forced guarding companies to make detrimental cut-backs, the outcome was – and continues to be – very damaging to the industry. Something needed to be done to break the vicious cycle.

Better commitment and motivation
Perhaps one of the arguments in favour of restricting the hours of individual workers was that there'd be more workers required, and the demand for additional officers, etc would (initially, at least) force wages upwards.

Therefore, security operatives wouldn't lose out on pay when their hours were reduced, and by virtue of the newly-enforced breaks, holidays and shorter shift patterns the employers would have well-rested, more committed and better motivated employees.

The Working Time legislation was meant to step in to stop the erosion of standards caused primarily by security companies attempting to compete for yet more work in a price-driven market. Unfortunately, as this practice is well-established it may take something more than the current legislation to reverse the low expectations of the service which the industry currently provides.

True, the Working Time Directive does have its loopholes, the most significant of which is an opt-out clause whereby employees can write to their employers to volunteer to work more than 48 hours per week without either party breaking the law. Union bodies such as Amicus have raised concerns over whether this will not undermine the whole purpose of the legislation, as some employers may put pressure on employees to sign away their rights to proper breaks and sensible hours in order to remain in work.

There's also an exemption for workers in a few sectors, such as transport, healthcare, the police and the self-employed (which may exclude some guarding personnel working part-time for a number of companies) from the Directive itself.

With the Government and certain sectors of the industry calling for security service providers to undertake police duties or support them in certain areas, there may even be pressure applied to have working practices more closely aligned, and even skewed in favour of exemption.

Where wages have been kept low, security officers have tended to work longer hours in order to provide themselves with a living wage. The guarding roles in themselves have often been static, with very few interesting or demanding tasks. Thus fighting tire

Enforcing the legislation
Enforcement of the Working Time Directive is currently split between two bodies: the Health and Safety Executive (for the working time limits) and Employment Tribunals (for entitlements such as rest periods and holidays). Although these bodies are set to enforce the legislation, industry leaders have themselves raised concerns on the impact strict adherence to the Directive may have on businesses in the UK as a whole.

The Confederation of British Industry warned that the Directive would limit company flexibility, which is seen as vital to future growth. The British Chamber of Commerce has also commented on the low productivity rates of British workers, which they feel is the reason staff often needed to work longer hours.

An even greater concern has been raised within the industry by the BSIA. In a statement towards the end of last year, the Association stated that provisional research showed at least 20-30% more security officers would be required to maintain current levels of security. They highlighted the point that, even if the majority of workers offer to opt-out of the 48-hour week, it would only require 10% of workers to remain within the 48-hour guidelines for there to be a 'significant impact' on the marketplace.

Consider also the fact that the statistics for security officers with some form of criminal record may be as high as 30%. Under the guidelines laid down by the Private Security Industry Act, they would no longer be able to continue working as security officers once proper screening and licensing is implemented. The implications are that the manned security sector may be facing a heavy shortfall of able security officers.

If wages increase as a direct result, that may reduce the cost of staff turnover or stem the tide of those leaving the industry. However, it may also push clients and end users to look at the alternatives.

Some manned guarding companies have expressed their concern that clients may, for instance, revert to employing in-house security personnel if they feel there is no cost saving in continuing to use outside contractors.

Other guarding companies have sought to tackle this issue by looking at ways in which they perform 'added value' duties such as reception manning, escorting visitors on the premises, messenger duties, fire safety and risk management services. On numerous occasions in the past 12 months or so, Ian Johnson Associates has been approached to provide training for security officers in conducting risk assessments, conflict management courses or writing site security policies. In some cases, bringing in extra duties and investing in training has been shown to not only improve job satisfaction and help integrate contract guards with clients' own employees, but also – and more importantly for clients – reduce expenditure in other areas of the company.

Better security costs more
There have, of course, been a good many success stories where guarding companies have maintained standards and provided a cost-effective service to the client by not offering to go in at the lowest price.

While conducting tender management projects on behalf of clients, Ian Johnson Associates' consultants have listened to many presentations by guarding company representatives all echoing the same theme... "If you're seeking a quality guarding service, expect to pay the going rate for good officers".

In a lot of cases, that ethos pays off. After all, any company's greatest asset is its employees, and to get the best from those employees investments will have to be made in the staff (even if they're sub-contracted) – both in terms of welfare and training.

As well as being prepared to accept the need to pay improved wages, new working methods also have to be considered. A typical example would be where three-man guarding teams working a three-by-three shift cycle (three day shifts, three night shifts and then three days off) are converted into four-man shifts working a four-on, four-off shift cycle. This still provides for 24-hour cover, as well as being able to add overtime to basic shift pay through rostering officers to cover colleagues when they're off sick or on holiday without breaking the 48-hour limit for a working week.

By giving officers a shorter working week, and dividing their shift work and rest time more evenly, those officers should be regularly rested and better prepared to perform their duties. However, it's much harder to organise rotas for sites where 24-hour cover is needed for shifts and only one officer is required at any one time. This sort of security cover may seem too costly.

Systems grow in prominence
In some cases, clients have weighed up the costs and benefits and decided to bring outsourced guarding back in-house. In other cases, end user organisations have decided to look at the alternatives (namely the ways in which technology can supplement or even replace the use of security officers). Advances in technology have meant that you can now use existing equipment such as ISDN links, Intranet and Internet services, CCTV and alarm systems to not only record through CCTV cameras, but relay pictures to remote monitoring facilities.

Through the use of alarms with zone activation, electronic access control and CCTV systems it's possible to prevent, detect and/or investigate possible security breaches before contacting the police – all from a remote location/dedicated monitoring facility. It's then possible to provide more reliable, pictorial evidence for identification of suspects (and, ultimately, prosecution of those individuals).

With the price of security 'kit' now decreasing, many practitioners find this option to be an affordable one. The purchase and maintenance of security equipment will be cheaper in the longer term than opting for manned security solutions.

That said, security managers with a little less experience in post may find the specification and purchase of security equipment something of a minefield.