Officers need a moveable feast

SIR – I WOULD NOT GO AS FAR AS TO SUGGEST that Security Watchdog managing director Terry O’Neil’s comments at the SITO National Training Conference (‘Together we can’, SMT, December 2004, pp16-21) are so focused on finding fault with security companies’ Terms and Conditions of Employment for their officers that they’re blinkered, but I do feel his interpretations of on-site audits are far too simplistic. Indeed, in some cases they’re fundamentally flawed.

For instance, Terry’s assertion that it’s “sinister” for a given contractor to offer different Terms and Conditions on different sites implies that the motivation for this action is to cause harm. I would suggest this is more related to operational or legal circumstances. If TUPE or a single client stipulates one set of Terms and Conditions of Employment, then no employer should be required to mandate these for other personnel on other contracted sites. In point of fact, under the TUPE Regulations such changes would be illegal.

Terry goes on to suggest that discretionary sick pay schemes should be offered to employees. Again, a well thought-out argument, but such a suggestion would be anathema to Human Resources managers, solicitors and other professionals involved in the recruitment industry. The term ‘discretionary’ inevitably translates as: “We will only pay out when we want.” As such, tribunals don’t like them.

As much as we are often loathe to admit, contracted suppliers – as is the case with temporary staff – are an effective means of filling demand without the liabilities and commitment of in-house engagement. This applies as much to the contracted company as it does the contracted worker, and all parties are fully aware of this inherent risk. That being the case, the attractiveness of all benefits must outweigh the perceived risks.

Consider how the offer of sickness pay compares with an enhanced pay rate to employees who view themselves as being healthy (noting that ‘being healthy’ is a prerequisite on most security company application forms)? As such, I would suggest that employers look at adding to the immediate disposable income of the worker or finding alternatives that relate to the transient risks of the work (eg creating portable benefits).

Like the Stakeholder pensions, the Government’s home computing initiative has spun off a number of portable staff benefits (such as low cost lease cars and free mobile telephones, etc), all of them offering low entry costs and with transferable risk. By focusing on this type of scheme, contracted companies are more able to compete with in-house regimes.

To my mind, Terry quite properly suggests that for things to change, competitor companies must work together. However, this process should not be linked to wage controls (and, by extension, price fixing).

As the recent report written by Michael Porter suggests, industry bodies should engage with their client groups, creating an independent and effective way of organising competitive schemes involving portable employee benefits.