Working out the Directive

In focusing our attentions on licensing and the Security Industry Authority, we have seemingly ignored – for the time being, at least – a number of other important issues, one of which is the Working Time Directive.

However, the recent procrastination and prevarication from our friends in Government and the European Commission in relation to the opt-out clause to work more than 48 hours has ensured that the Working Time Directive is now firmly back on the agenda.

Examining the positives

Before reviewing the ramifications of the Directive, let’s do a quick re-cap. Since the Working Time Directive saw daylight (in 1998), there has been much to celebrate. Many of its objectives have had a positive impact on the manned guarding industry. The introduction of free health assessments for those officers working nights. Compulsory lunch breaks and daily rest periods. The minimum wage. The guaranteed four weeks of annual leave.

Those are just some of the examples of how the Working Time Directive has greatly improved the working patterns and environment of the average security officer. This in turn – it is argued, and again I believe correctly – has led to an improvement overall in the delivery of the end product. In other words, our service to the end user.

Only the issue of the 48-hour working week remains. And how frustrating it has become. The British Security Industry Association (BSIA) has now discovered the UK Government’s position on changes to the Working Time Regulations, following reports that the European Commission (EC) favours a compromise approach (‘Cometh the hour...’, SMT, September 2003, p3).

Apparently, the DTI has suggested that any changes with respect to the opt-out clause are “unlikely” before the end of 2005.

In addition, the man tasked with reviewing the regulations at the EC, Fernando Perera, is reported to have said that it’s now unlikely the opt-out clause will remain the same, but is unlikely to be abolished altogether. Apparently, we have reached an unhappy no-man’s land where no formal amendment is going to be proposed, and where a ‘preferred solution’ is likely to be suggested.

How unsatisfactory is that? Meanwhile, the rest of us have to wait and somehow plan around how such a ‘manana’ attitude will impact on our businesses, our people, our administration function and our costs.

Should the opt-out be scrapped?

We’re told that senior officials in Brussels are presently deciding whether the 48-hour opt-out should be scrapped. A survey carried out last January by the Employment Lawyers’ Association on behalf of the EC suggested an overwhelming support for retaining the UK’s opt-out. Over three quarters (78%) of the 700 private and public sector employers who responded felt the opt-out should be retained. 65% said they currently use the opt-out by asking their workers to sign an agreement to work more than 48 hours per week.

Of those making use of the opt-out, the majority (71%) believed that removing it would adversely affect their UK competitiveness.

If we look at the experiences of both France and Germany – both of whom have embraced the 48-hour working week with enthusiasm – and then consider the state of their economies, should we not at least hesitate before placing ourselves in a similar situatio

This last point is an interesting one. Currently, from our own perspective as one of the major employers of security officers in the City, the majority of our contracts are still based on a 56-hour week. This shift pattern works admirably well, assuming that the pay rates are balanced appropriately.

Steadily, however, we’re moving towards a 48-hour week where those rates can be negotiated, but such contracts are still the exception rather than the rule.

Once again, the issue centres on cost and who’s going to pay? Within the 48-hour week legislation, the officers must not be financially penalised because they’re no longer ‘permitted’ to work longer hours and earn ‘additional’ money. It doesn’t take a mathematician to realise that if an officer who’s been used to working 56 hours is only ‘allowed’ to work 48, then somebody else has to fill the eight-hour shortfall.

In real terms, that means additional staff – two officers instead of one, four instead of three, etc – with the extra burden of costs, not just in terms of the hourly rate or salary but also the uniforms, the training and the necessary administration, etc. And where are these extra officers going to come from? Whereas I’m comfortable that if we can persuade customers to move to a 48-hour shift pattern they’ll benefit in the longer term, I’m not so confident of their willingness to meet the cost.

Practical issues to overcome

There are also some practical issues to overcome. Within our industry, two or even three-year contracts are now not untypical. Assuming that we secure a new contract with a client for three years starting in January 2004, during that contract period the opt-out clause may or may not change.

It’s now expected that the Directive is to be amended towards the end of 2005, but more realistically those amendments will come in 2006. That leaves us with an awkward renegotiation and, probably, an entirely new contract altogether.

What we can do from the outset, of course, is attempt to ensure that our clients are fully aware of the likely change, and manage the situation as it occurs. That said, it’s an unnecessary interruption.

Planning for the future

At the moment we’re all singing in the wind. We don’t actually know for sure what’s going to happen with the Working Time Directive or when, and that is where the real difficulty lies.

Coming so soon on the back of ‘local’ costs such as the congestion charge, and national costs (including licensing and public liability insurance), let’s hope that the BSIA can grasp the nettle and elicit a positive timeframe for action from our Government.