Take all the physical and technical paraphernalia of security systems — fences, doors, locks, gates, CCTV, access control, security officers.
All of them are pretty much redundant when it comes to protecting employees as soon as those workers leave the premises and are then potentially vulnerable to acts of violence, abuse, accidents, illness, and/or injury.
So often we hear the mantra from company managers and directors that: “Our people are our greatest asset.” Why, then, do more organisations not look after those people in a better way and specifically at points in time when they’re at their most vulnerable?
A CCTV system will cost the buying company several thousand pounds. Such systems come with a warranty and/or a service contract. However, the surveillance system doesn’t “think for itself.” If it malfunctions it will be replaced. It also needs a few “nannies” to look after it — and it doesn’t bleed.
Patrick Dealtry is speaking at IFSEC International 2013
Where: Lone Worker Education Theatre
What: The Lone Worker Protection Sector: developments, standards, solutions, devices
When: 13-16 May 2013
Register to hear Patrick speak for free
There’s no such warranty or service contract on an employee. If a member of staff “breaks,” then, yes, they can be replaced — but by someone who then needs considerable “programming” to reach a state of usefulness for the host organisation.
And that whole process will come at some cost to said organisation — in terms of time, recruitment, and, potentially at least, from a legal perspective.
Unlike a CCTV system, employees have a voice and are increasingly likely to use that voice to vote with their feet.
People: the most vulnerable element of a system
Over the years, the change from a generally manufacturing-based economy to a mostly service-based economy has resulted in employees working in other people’s premises or homes. In other words, well away from their employers’ ability to protect them. As a direct result, one could argue with some justification that people have become the most vulnerable element of any given company’s operations.
However, when you visit security exhibitions, what, in the main, do you see? Rows and rows of “things” designed to protect buildings.
Of course, buildings themselves remain a vulnerable and important part of any organisation’s security concerns. The security industry has duly protected them to the nth degree on a continual basis by finding new and no doubt better ways of doing exactly the same thing.
With buildings already something of a fortress, then, organisations should now move on to what is, as I said, the most vulnerable part of a company’s operations — the people.
There are signs of change. At IFSEC International 2012 we saw the birth of the Lone Worker Protection Pavilion. That zone — along with its parallel conference programme taking place in the Lone Worker Protection Education Theatre — appears again next month at the NEC in Birmingham.
The lone worker companies participating are entrepreneurial, innovative, and taking a business risk in actually doing something that saves lives and prevents serious injury.
Importantly, their services and solutions also protect employers from legislation and litigation while affording “external” staff greater confidence as they go about their employers’ daily business.
If those employers need some motivational statistics when it comes to addressing the issue of lone worker safety and security, how about the following regarding the Corporate Manslaughter Act?
Current investigations: 56. Increase in investigations over the last year: 40 percent. Organisations charged with offences in the last four months: 4.
Focusing on the fact that only three prosecutions have been successful to date can lead to an unrealistic feeling of complacency!
While lone worker service companies have grown well over the last few years, there are still far too many end user organisations resistant towards taking such elementary, obvious, available, beneficial, and relatively inexpensive steps aimed at employee protection.
Why is this? Well, perhaps one reason is that protection of lone workers often falls somewhere between safety and security.
The message to employers, though, is absolutely clear. Resist upgrades on the buildings and focus on the people.
Oh. Sorry. I forgot. “It will never happen to me, will it?”
Patrick Dealtry is speaking at IFSEC International 2013. Register to hear him speak for free.
Good article and interesting view, from a recruitment perspective the biggest motivation for employees seeking an alternative employer is the employee’s perception of not being valued, not money as most would expect. As the emerging talent crisis in our industry gathers momentum, looking after your employees will become more important if you want to retain them.
I think we’re seeing some good ideas from law enforcement when it comes to protecting their personnel. It started with dash cams, but now we’re seeing “badge cams” and even sunglasses with recording devices so that they can document issues that they run across. That doesn’t protect them from physical harm directly but it does help to address the problems that are out there and it does a good job of protecting them from frivolous claims.
Another interesting perspective, Brett. Too few employers see their competitors in terms of staff, I feel. They perceive the competition for customers, but not always the competition for the staff they hold.
I wonder if projects like Google Glass will impact on the competitiveness of the lone worker protection area?
I think that Google Glass will eventually be a big deal for not only worker protection but also personal protection. If you’ve been around the internet for any amount of time you’ve probably seen a dash cam from a car in Russia. They have a problem with insurance fraud and people have figured out how to protect themselves, they record every trip that they make just in case someone tries to set them up. I can see Google Glass being used on a very broad scope for this, delivery drivers for example. I know someone who delivers for a large… Read more »
True, and as a keen cyclist I also come across a lot of the cycle helmet-cam wearing brigade. Those cameras have led to a lot of prosecutions of drivers who have assaulted cyclists or hit them through dangerous driving. I don’t like watching the videos though. As you say, the proliferation of this technology into the every day could see huge differences.
Cyclists are another good example. I think of how often I hear complaints about cyclists hogging the road or doing dangerous things like ignoring signals but the vast majority of the accidents caught on camera the cyclist is following the rules of the road. This is the kind of personal protection they need to defend themselves when the police show up or they have a day in court.
A subject very close to my heart. And for the record, I always wait at signals!
So on the topic of protecting your employees, what types of things do you wish your employer could do for cyclists who commute via bike to improve their safety? I know that an individual company can’t do much about traffic but if a group of companies in an area can lobby local government there is a better chance of making changes. I used to work for a company that lobbies to have improved crossing signals put in place because a good number of use regularly walked from the office to area restaurants but traffic was horrible and we were constantly… Read more »
I for one, prefer that my employer not interfere in my private life. I don’t want my boss “protecting” me as I go about my life outside the office – don’t save me from my dangerous hobbies, nor my dangerous habits, like eating too much red meat!
It is reasonable for the company to protect itself, but please leave big brother to the office.
shipwreck you are right. We have seen quite a number of bosses taking extra care of their emplyees and started guiding them in their personnel lives which is quite unethical as well as not required. They just wanted to show that they are extra conserned about their emplyees but in actual they are making them rebelious which will surface in one point of time or other. So be carefull all bosses.
@Stephen Spiegel, I’m not so much talking about your home life. These are workday issues for the most part that I’m thinking of. If you had a dangerous intersection outside of your office building where on average one employee was hit per month you’d probably want to do something about that before you ran out of employees. I’m not saying your employer should pressure you to give up skydiving or swimming with sharks if that’s what you do on your spare time but I do think that through the course of your work day that they should be concerned especially… Read more »