As the security sector’s leading professional journal for end users and – necessarily – an ‘independent free spirit’, Security Management Today is able to escape from the political tightropes that so often have to be negotiated by the established bodies representing the industry. In essence, that means we are able to welcome and endorse campaigns that we feel will be beneficial to the long-term well-being of the industry, and those who work within its terms of reference.
There are many problems besetting our industry. The Private Security Industry Act should have the teeth to break some of them – disreputable guarding companies included – but there are longer term (and deeply ingrained) obstacles to progress to which we must no longer pay lip service.
Obstacles about which something must be done NOW if this industry is ever to set it’s collective house in order.
For one, the stark reality is that the terms and conditions of men and women working as security officers in the contract manned guarding sector are – in general – little short of an embarrassment. It seems almost inconceivable that, in the 21st Century, we continue to ask individuals to work regular 12-hour shifts on an average of 56 hours per week. And we’re not unduly concerned that some have to work 72 or even 84 hours in that time.
Ally this to the fact that wage rates even within some accredited companies working for the blue chip concerns are as low as GB pound 5.50 within central London (and correspondingly less in other regions of the country), and you will readily acknowledge that the industry harbours many beliefs and benchmarks about which it ought to be ashamed.
Sadly, the problems for our beleaguered security officers don’t end there. Pension provisions – the new Stakeholder schemes among them (‘Staking a claim’, SMT, April 2001, pp 36-38) – have become little more than shells, with no contribution whatsoever being made by either the employer or the employee. Even less attention is being paid to providing insurance cover for officers, be it in the form of Death in Service benefits, Life Assurance or personal accident cover.
This is just the tip of a very hefty iceberg. In light of these truisms, it comes as little or no surprise that this industry fails to attract quality people on a large scale. Even if it did, with the current situation that prevails it would prove almost impossible to retain them.
The basic problem with the contract manned guarding industry is that, at almost every level, practitioners are often guilty of dancing around the problems. They are apparently unwilling to confront the prevailing issues head-on – and they’re not the only ones. Contractors are invariably frightened to tell their in-house clients the truth for fear of losing their custom. For their part, clients do not always wait to hear the truth. Why? It will probably make life much more uncomfortable for them. Therefore, the vicious cycle continues, and we go on living in a world where everything is seemingly perfect. It isn’t.
If the industry continues to pluck individuals out of job centres whom it doesn’t know from Adam, offers them the sort of terms and conditions described above, rushes them through five-year telephone screening and a basic induction course (and, within a week from the start of this process, offers them to clients as a quality product), it deserves all of the grief that comes its way.
The client is by no means always blameless in this scenario. Particularly those that fully understand the industry, because they will be all-too-aware of the recruitment problems emanating from such terms and conditions. They will be every bit as much to blame as the relationship between client and contractor progressively degenerates.
The real losers, though, are the industry’s Associations and Inspectorates. At times, they have been unwittingly used by the contractor as a mark of quality for them to win the security business in the first instance – and, of course, by the client in taking up the contractor’s offer. Indirectly, they could also be held culpable for a share of the blame.
Notwithstanding this, the efforts of the Trade Associations and Inspectorates need to be applauded for trying to bring order to a situation that could easily have been far more chaotic than it already is. The British Security Industry Association and the National Security Inspectorate have used the British Standards Institution to establish recognised British Standards. Standards that have provided a foundation for quality, and encouraged a quality end to the guarding market.
That said, can this industry really purport to offer a quality service to the end user when its very own high jump bar has been set so low?
Not without justification, contractors will complain that a significant number of clients talk about quality but are seldom willing to pay for it. To some extent at least that is a fact from which we can’t escape. Conversely, when the contractors spot an opportunity to provide a security service under favourable terms and conditions they often fail to deliver on their promise. Another fact that we can no longer continue to sweep under the carpet.
‘A Contract of Substance’
How, then, do we improve the current situation? In an ideal world, we should be able to say to all those contractors who have picked up unworkable or manifestly unfair contracts (either in an open tender or by way of acquisition) that they should throw them away and start their guarding portfolio from scratch. Of course that will never happen. Some of the major names on either side of the house could be seriously embarrassed.
What the industry might like to consider is approaching this particular problem from a new angle. We ought to establish a genuine quality standard which can be measured against an agreed set of criteria. A standard that, at the same time, will capture the needs of the employee, satisfy the requirements of a client genuinely interested in being supplied with good security and that allows contractors to provide a consistent and reliable service.
Rather than blanket British Standards that provide a comfort factor for clients (even BS 7499 is not specific as to how security officers should be remunerated and managed), might the way forward lie in a site-related, contract-specific ‘mark of excellence’ that sets a given contract apart from its ‘competitors’?
One that encourages pride and professionalism from the personnel deployed to site. One that sets the client apart in its commitment to a true, three-way partnership between itself, the contractor and the officers.
A partnership that is truly dedicated to the protection of assets and personnel alike.
With this in mind, Security Management Today welcomes the introduction of ‘A Contract of Substance’. A highly laudable initiative that affords the industry a vehicle for (eventually) levitating itself to a truly professional status in line with the terms and conditions laid down in the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Devised and consulted upon by a host of clients, contractors and other interested industry organisations – including The Security Watchdog, Securiplan, Whitehall Security Services, Trident Safeguards, CISCO Systems, Glaxo SmithKline, Bovis Lend Lease, Camberford Law, Infologue and Security Management Today – what is being proposed is an industry standard. A minimum standard whereby the contractor’s performance can be measured against a clear, agreed set of industry benchmarks.
To be credible, the standard must transcend anything currently in the industry. It must be seen to be an industry standard – not a Security Watchdog standard, nor a Securiplan or Whitehall standard. Indeed, The Security Watchdog’s role in ‘A Contract of Substance’ is to act as both driver and co-ordinator. Nothing more. Whether you believe in the organisation’s services or not, The Watchdog certainly has the time, energy, commitment and resources to carry out these functions on behalf of the industry.
In order to buy-in to this initiative, companies do not have to be a member organisation of the Joint Security Industry Council, the British Security Industry Association or the IPSA, or accredited against BS 7499 and BS 7858. Neither do they have to be involved with The Watchdog or indeed any other independent consultant. They just have to meet the agreed standards.
All reports generated by way of ongoing, independent critical site audits will be voluntarily (and readily) made available to the Security Industry Authority to help its masters as they come to terms with the requirements of licensing and inspection.
For clients, it really is no longer an option to try to buy security on the cheap and hope to receive a consistent service. ‘A Contract of Substance’ offers a potential vehicle for upgrading your security.
Without end user support this initiative – like just about any other that has been attempted within the contract manned guarding sector – will inevitably whither and die. Clients are critical in helping to lead the industry towards a better and brighter future. The support of the major contractors is also paramount.
The benchmark of quality
So what are the main components of ‘A Contract of Substance’. There are ten ‘benchmark’ areas in all, covering officer pay, benefits, working hours, welfare, screening, training, operational efficiency, contract management, administration and general contractual issues. All ask for objectively measurable criteria and call for independent auditing to validate the delivery of any given security contract.
In terms of officer pay, take a familiar scenario. Three security officers belong to the same contract company and, each day, they travel from Barking to Fenchurch Street in London. While they have been allocated day shifts and duties on their respective assignments are very similar, it’s there that the similarities end. One is paid GB pound 5 per hour, the others at a rate of GB pound 6 and GB pound 7 respectively. Each in turn has become progressively disenchanted with the wage rate and, had the officer working for GB pound 5 per hour been more motivated, he would have departed long ago.
On the way home each officer buys a London Evening Standard to see what jobs are on offer elsewhere. It’s no real surprise that they find their own company is advertising for a guarding assignment just off Leadenhall Street in the City. The ad quotes an hourly rate with benefits. An hourly rate equating to approximately GB pound 8.75. At this point, the officers concerned know they have had enough.
We ask our security officers to protect billions of pounds’ worth of assets, occasionally at personal risk to themselves, and yet the industry pays them a pauper’s rate for doing so.
With this in mind, ‘A Contract of Substance’ lays down absolute minimum pay rates for a given contract in a given region based on a 48-hour working week (a working week that MUST be adhered to when the UK’s derogation with respect to the Working Time Directive comes to an end in 2003).
The minimum wage rates for 2002 are:
Many of SMT’s readers will say that these rates should be higher. They’d be right, but the fact remains that you have to start from some base point. What everyone in the industry must recognise – and buy into – is that the officer wage rate is fundamental as a first step in attracting high calibre security staff. The outstanding problem suffered by virtually every contract company in the industry is how to manage staff who, in virtually the same area and doing the same job, are paid at such different rates. ‘A Contract of Substance’ navigates that problem by establishing an accepted minimum hourly rate.
Officer benefits are also crucial. Any contract that hopes to meet the terms of ‘A Contract of Substance’ must adhere to sick pay rules. Sick pay must be available after a four-month probationary period, and should commence after a maximum of three working days off sick. Hours and pay rate will be determined according to the Working Time Directive, while a minimum allowance of 10 shifts (or two weeks’ earnings) must be the norm per annum.
There must also be a non-contributory pension scheme in place, with a minimum 2% contribution by the employer after one year’s service. Employee contribution to any such scheme is optional.
What of life assurance and personal accident cover? ‘A Contract of Substance’ states that a life assurance policy be made available to the value of GB pound 10,000 after one year’s employment, with a minimum personal accident cover of GB pound 200 per week for a period of 26 weeks.
Working hours and officer welfare
Nothing embarrasses the industry more than the number of working hours each officer has to complete in order to make ends meet. The industry will never be taken seriously until it genuinely embraces the Working Time Directive and openly condemns the current practices with respect to both daily and weekly hours of work. A significant number of security officers don’t have a life. They simply exist.
‘A Contract of Substance’ makes a start in redressing the balance. The 48-hour working week is immediately applicable, and rosters must be based on a maximum of 48 hours per week. No officer is allowed to average in excess of 60 hours per week over a 12-week period. There must be a minimum of one day’s rest period per week, a maximum regular shift of 13 hours and a minimum daily rest period of 11 hours. Officers can never work back-to-back shifts unless there is a proven emergency and there is absolutely no alternative.
In terms of officer welfare, the Contract of Employment must be signed by both parties in order to qualify as ‘A Contract of Substance’. Terms and conditions must be fully-explained to – and understood by – each security officer, and disciplinary and grievance procedures must be included.
The accurate calculation of officer pay is also key to the whole process. A maximum of two pay queries per officer per annum is allowable, while any queries must be resolved by the contractor within one week of receipt. This is an area that has blighted many organisations over the years. It must cease to do so.
Officer screening and training
The importance of screening post-licensing cannot be overestimated. It’s undoubtedly the area which gives clients the most concern, yet it is open to perpetual abuse. In essence, as things stand a contract guarding company is able to employ someone whose background they know virtually nothing about and – despite the strictures imposed by BS 7858 – places them on a guarding assignment within days of starting the job.
The rules regarding the five-year telephone screening prior to employment are specific if somewhat unrealistic. Individuals cannot be employed until the process has been completed, and yet with such a fast ‘entry and exit’ system in the industry it’s easy to understand how and why shortcuts are taken.
To its great credit, ‘A Contract of Substance’ is clear on the vetting requirements of the contractor’s team. All officers must be screened to BS 7858, including evidence of the five-year telephone vet prior to commencement of employment. This would also be the case for any temporary staff. In addition, subcontracted staff must never exceed 25% of the contractor’s on-site team.
In practice, the team auditing for ‘A Contract of Substance’ adherence will select at random the individuals whom they intend to ‘examine’ in detail. This will include a complete review of their relevant screening files.
When it comes to training, five days’ of basic training is the bare minimum (encompassing both classroom-based and on-site instruction). Specialist training should be conducted in line with each contract’s terms and conditions, and there must be evidence in place of suitable training for supervisors and managers. Training also has to be monitored.
There must be a regular assessment of training needs, accurate records of all training conducted must be maintained and officers have to be paid at the full pay rate for attending their induction course.
Operational efficiency to the fore
As far as ‘A Contract of Substance’ is concerned, operational efficiency centres on an understanding of the terms of the contract between client and contractor. An acceptance that certain key performance indicators will be regularly monitored through the means of a Service Level Agreement. An acknowledgement that, in order to achieve operational efficiency on site, all officers must possess a first class working knowledge of the assignment instructions and associated operational records. An acceptance that staff turnover rates must be held to realistic minimum levels.
It’s critical to the success of any contract that a full complement of trained staff are always available and that, even in unforeseen circumstances, trained reserves can be supplied within the notice period laid down in the relevant instructions. The audit teams working on ‘A Contract of Substance’ will organise practical on-site visits to ensure the duty team are fully competent and able to discharge their tasks.
Ultimately, it is down to the effectiveness of the contractor’s on-site team – and the immediate support available to it – as to whether or not a contract is successful. Assuming that the required standards have been met elsewhere, the foundations will have been laid for a consistent and high quality service to the end user. Effective contract management is essential.
In line with this, the frequency of operations managers’ visits has to be agreed as part of the Service Level Agreement – and fulfilled. Visits must be carried out on time, and must be ‘quality visits’. Regular check calls will have to be carried out by day and by night (again, on time), and the Health and Safety policy adopted must be prominently displayed and understood by all officers. The policy itself has to be reviewed annually by a qualified individual employed by the contractor.
Very few battles are won without effective administrative support. In an industry as pressurised as the contract manned guarding sector, it becomes an essential pre-requisite to successful performance. How, though, should the industry be supporting its field operations?
As well as ensuring that all the necessary equipment is provided on-site (eg guard patrol systems) and that the equipment is fully-functional, invoicing at Head Office must be timely and accurate. It must be within the contractual terms agreed. Where appropriate, credit notes should be raised voluntarily for shifts not covered in accordance with contract.
Last, but not least, contractual issues must never be overlooked if ‘A Contract of Substance’ is to be awarded. Contract conditions must reflect annual wage inflation increases for security officers. Standard insurances must also be in place to meet contractual requirements (ie employer’s liability, public liability, efficacy/contractual liability, fidelity, wrongful arrest and loss of keys). In addition, the contractor concerned must comply with TUPE.
All parties should bear in mind that this initiative in no way cuts across the work of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) as it establishes its own authority over the industry.
‘A Contract of Substance’ is a vehicle for the industry to put into practice what it has talked about for years. Whether client, contractor or commentator, for too long we have been able to criticise the industry for its inability to provide a consistent service.
‘A Contract of Substance’ might just remove the basis for that criticism. Tell us what YOU think.
Measuring A Contract of Substance
Contractors wishing to secure this benchmark of quality for a particular manned guarding contract must submit to an independent annual Contract Audit. The agreement and co-operation of the client must be obtained in advance.
Audit
The contractor and client will be notified of the month in which the Audit will take place, but not the date. The Audit will be administered by The Security Watchdog and carried out by two auditors, who have been approved by the Contract of Substance Panel. One auditor will work at the contractor’s headquarters and one at the client site, according to the Audit Criteria.
Charges
There will be a charge of GB pound 1,000 per site for the annual Audit, which may be paid by the Contractor or the Client. Volume discounts will apply to multi-site contracts.
Recognition
Contracts, which are found to comply with the Audit Criteria, will be awarded the title: A Contract of Substance. A certificate will be presented to the contract team. Each Contract of Substance will be announced in the security industry press, and quarterly lists of Contracts of Substance will be published in SMT Magazine. This endorsement will include the names of both the contractor and the client.
Audit Criteria
The Audit Criteria, which are all objective and measurable, have been agreed by the Contract of Substance Panel, which includes four security providers, four end-user clients and two leading industry representatives. The criteria will be reviewed annually.
Consultation Procedure
The Audit Criteria are open for discussion until 1st May 2002. The full text of the Discussion Document can be found at www.smtdirect.co.uk or can be posted to you on request – please contact The Security Watchdog on 01252 891100.
Comments and submissions about the criteria are invited from members of the industry, to be received by 1st May 2002. Feedback can be sent to Brian Sims, Editor of Security Management Today Magazine, via e-mail to: [email protected] or by fax to: 0207 560 4416, or by post to: Brian Sims, SMT Magazine, The Builder Group, Anchorage House, 2 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BE. Correspondence should be marked either “For Publication” or “Not for Publication”.
