One year on from the terrorist atrocities of September 11 2001, I found myself in conversation with an old friend. “Tell me,” he said… “While nobody would have wanted the events of September 11 to have happened, it must have been good for business…” He continued: “It must have been the ideal opportunity to build professional standards, and to generate the sort of return proportionate to the value the world now places on security… On top of regulation, it must be the ideal opportunity for you guys…”
Well, as an industry what have we done with that opportunity? Have we universally improved the training of our employees? Have we improved the financial rewards and benefits package they receive for tasks undertaken? Are we going to see leaps in reported profits as demand increases and prices rise to reflect the true value of security companies’ services?
And, finally, at a time when stock market values are falling fast, do we hear analysts around the world advising investors to plough their money into security companies?
The answer to most of these questions is a firm ‘No’ and, possibly, the contrary is true in some cases.
As an industry, we provide one of the most basic human needs. We operate in a market where demand for security officers exceeds the available supply.
Subsequent to the events of September 11, security is now very much on the corporate agenda – yet whenever the industry meets, the conversation soon turns to reducing margins and ever-increasing competition. Not to mention a situation where – somehow – we are always the victim of someone else.
Indeed, this feeling was typified by a comment at a recent meeting I attended when one managing director of a security company opined that, if he could persuade his customers to pay him a decent margin, he could look at reducing working hours, investing in training and improving his employees’ benefits. My answer was simple… If he would only charge a fair price for his service, he would be able to do all of the above.
Low costs don’t raise standards
In an industry with so much opportunity, why do we apparently compete primarily on price? If you tell any buyer that he or she can have the same for less then they’ll take it! Many of those who work in this industry have to rely on legislation rather than their employer to afford them a minimum standard of employment.
How many employees, I wonder, must fall back on the minimum wage legislation and the Government rather than their employer to ensure that they earn a basic living wage?
Given the special needs of our industry, we were granted dispensation under the Working Time Directive. Rather than choosing to use this productively, and demonstrate their abilities to control the excesses, many players in the contract security field travelled down the easy path of telling clients that the Working Time Directive either didn’t apply, or that they could “get round it”.
At worst, this failure to exercise any sort of self control will result in the dispensation being taken away – again requiring that the Government take care of our industry’s employees at a time when we, as employers, have failed to take effective action in managing our own affairs. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating price fixing or a cartel, but this steady downward spiral has to stop.
Within this industry, of course, all manned security suppliers are competitors. We’re all trying to win business from each other because there’s very little new business out there. Publicly, at least, most suppliers want to see minimum standards and recognition given across the industry to rising costs.
Evidence is already beginning to emerge that everyone is going to be faced with higher costs in the next few months. If you’re a manned security contractor and you haven’t yet talked to your insurance broker about what your premiums are going to be following the events of September 11, and the insurance industry’s reaction to what happened Stateside, then I suggest you do! In addition, I don’t believe that there’ll be any operator in our industry that finds a way around the Government’s 1% National Insurance increase from April next year.
When individuals or groups do take steps towards making fundamental changes to the industry, the first move seems to be to try to ridicule or destroy them for doing so. For instance, I’ve listened to opinions voiced at British Security Industry Association (BSIA) meetings, and read with interest what has been published within the pages of Security Management Today concerning ‘A Contract of Substance’. The focus of several key players in the industry seems to be to try and bring Terry O’Neil and The Watchdog down, yet isn’t Terry making a stab at exactly what many of us have said we want for the sector (ie trying to enforce a set of minimum standards for all)?
Like a good many of my peers, I didn’t like the fact that ‘A Contract of Substance’ had been instigated by an ‘outside’ organisation which clearly has an opportunity to profit, but Terry certainly enjoyed my own and Group 4’s support for the initiative.
The BSIA must show its teeth…
Group 4 Total Security fully supports regulation of the industry. We want to see the entire cost of that regulation placed on the employer rather than the employee, as we feel it to be unfair that the cost be borne by the highly dedicated men and women who work in the industry. As employers, we should look to recoup the cost of licensing from our customers. A cost they should be happy to bear in view of the benefits that regulation will bring.
To my mind, the BSIA needs to develop some teeth on this issue. I’d like to propose that the Association consider that all member security companies be asked to sign a declaration wholeheartedly supporting Government regulation of the industry, and stating that employees would never be asked to personally shoulder the cost of licensing. Perhaps any failure by members to support such a proposal should result in the termination of their membership. This belief will undoubtedly attract a range of opinions, and I look forward to participating in the ensuing debate.
Without doubt, the BSIA can help us. The Association represents something like 80% of the industry, yet its membership criteria have remained largely unchanged while the world has moved on. Don’t misunderstand me. I fully support the BSIA. It’s our Association, and I want it to be strong and a voice to be heard. If we truly want change (and we say that we do), then we must empower those whom we elect or appoint to pursue an agenda for that change.
If our industry is to undergo a ‘metamorphosis’ – and be strengthened into the bargain – we cannot continue to manage our businesses without feeling the effects of that change, and indeed acting upon it.
Professionalism for all
We must never forget the truism that a professional security industry is not just about professional security officers. It’s also very much concerned with professional managers and directors, too.
There are far more questions than answers when it comes to manned security and the prospect of regulation and increased professionalism. Indeed, many of the recent contributors to Security Management Today have highlighted problems that regulation based on standards alone may bring.
The more we argue among ourselves and devalue the attempts of others – ‘A Contract of Substance’ being a classic example – the more certain the need is in my mind for this industry to be regulated. Regrettably, though, this will inevitably mean that our industry will be controlled from the outside. I want us to control our own destiny from the inside.
Ultimately, our value proposition to our customers should be based on driving up standards and not on driving down price.
We need to offer all concerned the deal they deserve. In other words, the very best possible security service.
