‘Guards' should be a term for the past

Sir - I was looking through some back issues of your excellent journal, and came across an intriguing Letter To The Editor from Douglas Greenwell - the marketing director at G4S Security Services (UK) (‘Officers are always on their guard', SMT, November 2004, pp13-14) - which itself comments on a report in The Financial Times regarding the ‘lot' of the typical security officer.

Although I'm no longer operational within the security guarding sector, I nonetheless gained much experience and knowledge post-entry to the sector in 1998. I was first employed as a safety officer at the Coral Brighton & Hove Greyhound Stadium. As this was a part-time role for race meetings only, I attained a full-time post in 1999 with the now non-existant Burns International Security Services. I was assigned to the American Express contract at Amex House and associated facilities across Brighton.

During my time in the industry, I was employed by several of the major players. I served as an officer, supervisor and temporary contracts manager at Chubb Security Personnel, and as both an officer and temporary area operations controller at Securicor Guarding. I had a role as supervisor at Initial, and then became a controller at VSG's old Northampton hq. My qualifications include the NEBOSH General Certificate in Occupational Safety and Health and the PROFSEC Diploma.

The Times reporter Sathnam Sanghera failed to mention the low incomes of security officers. Those in the industry will be aware that officers' pay rates are contract-dependent, and can be below £6.00 per hour. In order for an officer to earn a decent living, a working week of 60 hours, working 12 hours day and night, would not be unusual.

Some assignments leave the officer(s) working in poor conditions. Not every contract provides the clean, slick and comfortable environment offered by The Financial Times' headquarters. CCTV is not necessarily a guaranteed tool at their disposal and, if there is a requirement to communicate with others, a lack of suitable and operationally-effective equipment is the norm in some - but not all - circumstances.

The list of Pros and Cons as to whether a security officer's position is a good one to take is long and arguable. In my experience, there are good and bad assignments. Just like any job, I suppose. I was part of some excellent assignments where I was proud of what I was doing. In others, my presence in uniform was unwanted, unwelcome and little but a ‘necessary evil' to satisfy the insurers.

To those who are thinking of joining the industry, I would advise considered deliberation. You will work long hours, both day and night. The pay is not good. If you are young, say in the range from 18 to 25, then this industry may not be for you. If you have to work nights and weekends, which is often the case, you'll be out on site assignments when your friends are out partying.

This industry is very slow to adapt and change. There are still companies in the UK providing security services who - for all of the reasons known only too well to us - really shouldn't be. Alas, the better parts of the industry are tarred with the same brush, and legitimate officers, managers and contractors work long and hard to swim against the tide of national media opinion.

With Security Industry Authority regulation and licensing allied to better pay rates and working conditions - both of which are now promised - my hope is that we are moving in the right direction.

We must be looking towards a time when the term ‘Guard' - which, personally, I find insulting - is replaced by the word ‘Officer'. This will change the public perception of this industry permanently - from one which is unregulated, with untrained officers acting as little more than ‘bodies in situ', to a sector populated by well-trained, qualified and licensed individuals whose genuine contribution to maintaining the safety and security of their clients, people, property and premises is highly valued.

Ian Arnold, Dispatch Technician, (MARS Planning Team) National Grid

The Editor replies:

Many thanks for your Letter To The Editor, Ian. During my tenure as Editor of Security Management Today, I have always referred to security operatives as ‘officers' rather than ‘guards'. Why? The former encourages an image of professionalism, while the latter suggests a static role that is far, far removed from the ever-burgeoning remit of today's in-house and contract teams.