SIR – I’ll not be alone at being concerned about the detail in David Evans’ Opinion article ‘Absorbing the cost of change’ (SMT, December 2003, pp13-15).
David’s views appear to be supported by Colonel Richard Evans’ responses to the interview questions posed in the same edition (‘On Guard’, pp49-51). When you have two highly respected professionals voicing such concerns, we’d

all be very foolish not to take note.

The dilemma posed by David and Richard has been caused by the failure of the industry to embrace the Working Time Directive. I’m not talking about four-on, four-off and overtime when an officer wants it (although that probably represents the best available scenario as things stand). Rather, I’m alluding to a genuine adherence to a maximum 42-hour working week with proper salaries and benefits which will attract a whole new standard of career officers into this industry.

Unless we stick to that philosophy, and force the industry’s customer base down that route, we’ll continue to remain at the end of the queue when it comes to attracting quality labour. What’s more, we’ll fully deserve that position.

The licensed security officer will be a much more powerful individual than officers of the past. He or she will sell their services dearly, moving to the company that offers them the best terms and conditions of employment. Given the undoubted shortfall of labour which will occur due to legislation, we have no doubt that an embarrassing number of commercial organisations will seriously consider reverting to an in-house operation, irrespective of whether or not there’s ultimately a requirement put in place to regulate such officers.

Further to that, there’s a real chance of a market developing outside of the voluntary Approved Contractors Scheme as end users – however unwisely – decide they don’t really want a huge hike in costs for their corporate security requirements.

So, what’s going to happen to the Brave New World offered by ‘A Contract of Substance’ (SMT, April 2002, pp20-23), the BSIA’s new standard for member companies entitled ‘Towards the Future’ and The Security Institute’s ‘Guide to the Procurement and Management of Manned Security Services’ (‘Guard right’, SMT, December 2003, pp26-29)?

The answer is ‘not much’ – unless we first of all admit there’s a problem. The manned security industry has a unique ability to bury its head in the sand on issues it doesn’t like, and then task the major companies to collectively lead us out of the wilderness.

The time is now long gone when a major player in the guarding industry can say one thing for public consumption but do something else entirely behind closed doors.

We really are in the Last Chance Saloon.

Source

SMT

Postscript

Terry O’Neil, Managing Director, The Security Watchdog