ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Then let us consider those aspects of the Working Time Regulations for which there are currently 'opt-outs' that may be agreed upon between employer and employee – with the latter holding the whip hand over how many hours he or she will work. Come this October and these 'derogations' may be discontinued. I therefore pose the question: "Should we not be fighting to protect our employees' rights to work for as long as they like within sensible limits?"

I find it difficult to understand why the working limit of 48 hours per week has been set at all. It appears to make no sense for our industry. The ideal roster pattern for a 168 (24-hour guarding) pattern allows for three officers to work 12-hour shifts for an average of 56 hours per week, with two days off for two weeks and three for the third week – which might be over a long weekend (see Table 1, below). How on earth can we adjust this popular shift pattern to restrict individual officers to the 48-hour average?

With 12-hour shifts we need a fourth officer, and the average then becomes 42 hours. A likely shift pattern would be four hours on followed by four hours off – the same as that applied to the Fire Brigade Union's members. Like the firemen, in order to take home a decent living wage, would not many of our security officers seek to take other jobs during their four days off?

The maths don't add up
At a time when Government and employers alike are seeking to change such a shift pattern as part of the 'modernisation' of the firemen's work practices, it surely makes no sense to have this regime imposed on our own industry. Whichever way you cut it, the mathematics of 48-hour weeks with 12-hour shifts do not add up to a sensible working pattern for our security officers.

What about the eight-hour shift? At present, night working involving security provision is not restricted to the eight-hour limit, but if this were to change then all shifts for 24-hour cover would normally have to become eight-hour shifts. In order for security officers to attain 48 working hours per week, each would have to work – on average – six days (or nights) each week, cutting back their days off per every seven to an average of one. Surely our employees would not want this?

Prior to the introduction of the European Working Time Regulations in 1998, the responsible element of our industry had been guided by the British Standard BS 7499 Part 1: 1999 in relation to the sensible limiting of working hours. Under paragraph 4.2 of those Regulations, it states: "Employees should not be required to work abnormally long hours to the detriment of health and efficiency. Only in exceptional circumstances should the working day or shift exceed 12 hours, and a shift pattern exceed five shifts". Most of us saw this as a maximum of 60 hours per week, and this remains as sensible today as it did back in 1998.

Such a limit generally conforms to the derogated Working Time Directive (which actually now allows for 13-hour shifts), and it would form a much more sound legal basis for our industry than the full Working Time Regulations.

I for one would like to think that this was a fundamental reason why Government approved the 'opt outs' in the first place.

There are those among us in the manned guarding industry – myself included – who rather wistfully (but unrealistically) have thought that the enforcement of 48 hours, and eight hours at night, would enable us to crank up our charges to end users by anything up to 25% such that officers' take home pay would remain the same despite them working less hours. However, before our industry tamely accepts the inevitability of such a restriction on our employees' rights to work sensibly for as long as they would like without recourse to turbulent overtime arrangements, we should ask ourselves three salient questions.

In the first instance, do we honestly believe that our clients are currently in a position to accept a huge rise in our charges? With a few exceptions I think not. Just imagine the muddle that would then ensue – our officers will face a reduced income or job losses, and our clients will be left with the options of remote monitoring, going in-house or even 'going cowboy'.

The ideal roster pattern for a 168 (24-hour guarding) pattern allows for three officers to work 12-hour shifts for an average of 56 hours per week, with two days off for two weeks and three for the third week – which might be over a long weekend. How on e

Second, for any given pay rate do you think that security officers would rather work 42/48 hours or 56/60 hours? I have no doubt that the majority would opt to earn more rather than work less. They rightly want and deserve a better wage, something that will not be achievable if they're forced into working less hours.

Lastly, less working hours for individual officers will require more officers to work the hours of cover that are needed – perhaps some 25% more. With the current recruiting difficulties being suffered, from where exactly will we be able to find the considerably large numbers of staff needed? The Illegal immigrant population?!

Calling for individual choice
To suggest that working anything up to 60 hours each week can be good for you when a better work-life balance is now seen as a primary aim may well be viewed as Orwellian lunacy.

That said, Prime Ministers, captains of industry, managers at large, many of SMT's readers and I regularly work such hours and more without our lives becoming seriously unbalanced. Why can we not allow members of the private security industry's workforce to make an individual choice on this matter?

There is much that is good about the Working Time Regulations, particularly in relation to holiday entitlement and the limitation of shift lengths. Although 13 hours is frustratingly only one more than the 12-hour norm, but one less than the 14 hours which currently allow a security officer to cover nights between, say, 6.00 pm and 8.00 am (so matching the slack time when a typical receptionist could not be on duty).

However, it's expected that Government will be reviewing the current 'opt outs' during 2003. It's generally accepted that the present derogations will be removed, and that the security companies can have no influence over this particular decision.

I am just as keen as anyone in the private security industry to see greater appreciation of security officers and what they do for a living, as well as better training and increased rewards. However, these desires will not be achieved if the 48-hour working week and eight-hour shift patterns are imposed on us.