Let's be frank here. Any working pattern that involves long hours combined with shift work – in particular if that shift work involves anti-social hours – will have a negative impact on those involved. There may be a deterioration in officers' work performance, and a negative effect on their level of motivation. There'll most probably be an increased likelihood of Health and Safety incidents due to tiredness, too. Problems at home caused by the shift routine may then lead to heightened absenteeism and staff churn. The story is a familiar one.
Is it any wonder that potential joiners wouldn't want to touch the industry with a barge pole? If the available pool of labour continues to shrink at current rates at the same time as entry qualification standards are increased by way of Security Industry Authority licensing, it's certain that the industry will be disadvantaged when competing with other service sectors for recruits.
As Wilson James director Stuart Lowden rightly states in The Security Institute's (TSI) 'Guide to the Procurement and Management of Manned Security Services': "Unless these working practices are seen to improve and employees are given the option of working fewer hours, the industry may well be facing a significant skills shortage in the near future."
One of the major weaknesses of the traditional approach to manned security rounds on the difficulties experienced when trying to cover staff for holidays, sickness, training courses or other planned/unplanned bouts of absence. Already working a 56 or 60-hour week – or sometimes more – officers' ability (not to say desire) for overtime can be limited to say the least. If they do work extra hours, they're usually adding another shift on to what's already a long week. Put simply, this has never been acceptable and no longer fits with a professional service for the client.
Types of security cover
According to TSI's Guide, the most frequently requested forms of security cover are: day position (weekdays), 24-hour presence (rotating shift pattern), 24-hour presence (day and night team), 24-hour presence (fixed day position, rotating night/weekend position) and night/weekend position.
Less frequently requested types of cover are for: day position (seven days), night position (seven nights), evening/twilight posting (weekdays) and weekend days.
TSI makes a series of recommendations focusing on the most frequently requested styles of cover, although Stuart Lowden makes the point that these "basic principles should hold good for the less frequently requested styles of cover".
For example, TSI's Guide suggests that rostered shift lengths shouldn't exceed 12 hours (and it's only during emergencies that an extension to 13 hours should be granted). Officers ought to be allowed suitable and sufficient breaks during their shifts, too – with 'sufficient breaks' defined as no less than 20 minutes in the first third of a shift, 40 minutes in the second third and 20 minutes in the final third. Officers working alone during the hours of darkness must receive at least one supervisory welfare visit per shift.
When working 12-hour shifts, an officer's standard roster – excluding overtime – should not exceed four consecutive days or nights (or five consecutive days or nights if working shift patterns of ten hours or less). Although staff should be allowed the freedom of choice to work in excess of 42 hours per week, they should never be asked to complete consecutive shifts. The famous back-to-back working that still goes on to this day.
TSI makes an excellent point in the Guide when it suggests that employee contracts contain a clause forbidding them from taking additional employment. The argument has always been that if you cut back on hours then officers will go elsewhere in their spare time to make up the monetary difference, which is very obviously not the required scenario.
Plans for 24-hour working
TSI advocates that security officer rosters be based on a working week not in excess of 48 hours (the simplest way to achieve that being the deployment of four operatives each working a 42-hour week).
If the available pool of labour continues to shrink at current rates at the same time as entry qualification standards are increased by way of SIA licensing, it’s certain that the industry will be disadvantaged when competing with other service sectors fo
Where possible, those rosters should allow for a relatively stable working pattern, and frequent switches between days and nights ought to be avoided. Similarly, overtime ought to be strictly controlled, wherever possible restricting members of staff to one extra shift per fortnight.
Unless there's a strong operational reason to do so, security operatives should be on 24-hour rotating shift patterns in preference to a fixed day position and a rotating night/weekend position (which, in practice, is very difficult to cover). Caution should also be exercised before employing separate day and night teams, as this approach frequently leads to a significantly inferior service out of hours.
Of course, delivering a 24-hour security service is preferable to providing only night and weekend day cover. However, on occasion the latter will be unavoidable. Where this is the case, TSI recommends that:
- shift lengths be restricted to 12 hours;
- night cover exceeding 12 hours must be addressed by splitting the cover into a twilight and night shift;
- under normal circumstances – ie wherever weekly cover amounts to 108 hours or more – a minimum of three officers should be employed on a permanent basis (although one of those officers may be a part-time employee);
- consideration should be given to work-life balance ratios.
If guarding companies and end users agree to implement the guidelines offered here then the work-life balance of officers can only improve, which would be a marvellous end result. Fresher and more alert because they've worked less hours, officers' lack of tiredness will lead to less accidents on site.
Further, TSI estimates that 33% more staff will be made available due to lower churn. "Consequently," states Stuart Lowden, "there'll be a far more robust structure for coping with absences and requests for extra cover."
Lowden goes on to comment: "Once the industry has established these standards, the improved perception of working conditions in the sector among potential recruits should result in an increased pool of labour, attracting new recruits who wish to have the freedom of choice to work reduced hours. The customer will benefit from having a more settled, better motivated security team who can perhaps assume additional responsibilities and add genuine value to the business."
Officer benefits and welfare
Historically, the manned security industry has been shy to say the least when it comes to offering officers real benefits for doing their job, and doing it well. Phillip Ullmann – group managing director of Securiplan plc – and Gary Ash (UK security manager at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals) are adamant that if this industry is to improve its reputation, and thereby attract recruits from other sectors, operatives' benefits simply must be improved.
To this end, what TSI has done in its Guide is lay down some much-needed minimum standards. The recommendation being that clients only include on their tender lists those security companies able to demonstrate 100% compliance with those standards.
True, the cost of the end user's service will rise… but a better performance from on-site officers will be the kickback.
Wherever possible, benefits have been linked to the length of service so as to improve staff retention levels. There are significant costs associated with providing this level of staff benefits, so the margin between the pay rates (paid to the officer by the contractor) and the charge rate (paid by the client to the contractor) must be adequate such that security companies can cover the cost.
When we talk about benefits for officers, the main focus is normally on sick pay, pensions, life assurance, personal accident cover, holiday and uniform entitlements. TSI has focused its attentions on these same areas.
Although staff should be allowed the freedom of choice to work in excess of 42 hours per week, they should never be asked to complete consecutive shifts
A basic sick pay scheme is essential to prevent officers from being placed under undue pressure to go to work even if unwell. Entitlement to a sickness scheme should begin after a standard six-month probationary period, and stretch to a minimum allowance of eight shifts per annum (increasing to 16 shifts following a period of five years' consecutive service). Entitlement must begin after a maximum of three working days off sick.
TSI stresses that hours per day and pay rate be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Working Time Directive (based on an average weekly pay over the preceding 12 weeks).
In their chapter of the Guide entitled 'Officer Benefits and Welfare', Ullmann and Wyeth categorically state: "A pension scheme entitlement is considered vital if the industry is to attract and retain good people, and to change the perception that security work is merely a short term job option and not a career with longer term professional opportunities ahead." This point is hugely important.
In an ideal scenario, company pension contributions ought to match the officer's own contribution up to a maximum of 2% after one year of employment and 4% after five years in post. In addition, security companies must be encouraged at all times to market their pension schemes and thus help in reducing the number of officers forced to work beyond the age of 65.
What about the pensions situation following a transfer under TUPE, though? When an officer transfers under TUPE and was previously a member of the pension scheme at their original employer, their continuous service should be recognised by their new employer when determining their eligibility for company pension contributions.
Similarly, life assurance cover is considered a vital pre-requisite to attracting the right calibre of people and encouraging professionalism in the industry. Entitlement to life assurance of £15,000 should commence after a year's full service at the guarding company. Be aware, though, that this is not the same as 'Death in Service' cover (which is normally part of a personal accident policy, and only relates to death resulting from an accident at work).
In addition, a minimum cover of £200 per week for 26 weeks' paid leave per annum should be granted to each officer.
Holiday and uniform entitlements
Officers should be afforded at least four weeks' paid leave per annum. That holiday entitlement must accrue from the date of joining the company, and must be paid even if the officer leaves within the first three months of service.
For each week of leave, the hours per week and pay rate should also be determined in accordance with the Working Time Directive (again, based on average weekly pay over the preceding 12 weeks). Security companies simply must provide their officers with the opportunity to take their full entitlement of four weeks' holiday by ensuring that there's a fully-trained team of relief officers able to cover for all periods of leave.
Free uniforms for every officer are a must. Those uniforms should be re-issued to officers as frequently as is necessary to ensure that they project a smart and professional image for the security company employing them, the industry as a whole and the customer.
And let's not forget about that all-important dry cleaning allowance, either! This allowance should (at the very least) cover the cost of a fortnightly spruce up.
Source
SMT
No comments yet