Security officers are now a very common sight in the country, writes "Acorn". They protect huge areas ranging from docks, retail centres, commercial companies and hospitals to sports events and functions, which allows the police to direct and concentrate their limited resources elsewhere.

SECURITY OFFICERS ARE EITHER in-house or contracted. The phrase "security guard" implies sedentary activity, however the idea of a security watchman stood around a brazier is in the sands of history. They now have a much more active role and a better description is "security officer", although in some quarters this can refer to a company security manager.

The men and women employed as security officers are frequently expected to work long hours at low pay without the benefit of a decent welfare system in the event of injury. While some want to be security officers, others do so because their employment opportunities are limited. Few of those who employ security officers would do their job. Many clients and employers expect security officers to fulfil a role not far off that of the police and yet are not prepared to train or equip them for the basic role as protectors of property.

Generally the prime role of security officers is double fisted. The velvet glove of proactive "hearts and minds" helps to break down barriers between staff and visitors while their presence helps to deter and prevent crime. In many respects they are filling the role of the "bobby on the beat", a key feature being Security By Walking About, i.e. patrolling.

Security officers are not specially protected under the law - in effect they are members of the public expected to fulfil a private policing role.

Zero tolerance

The mailed gauntlet of deterrent operations should include Zero Tolerance, which should only be activated when the security threat increases. The criminal fraternity gather intelligence and know that a persistent Zero Tolerance policy is ineffective. Good security operations, therefore, must keep them guessing, including those within the client company!

Contract security companies range from multi-million pound high profile international corporations to near one-man companies operating from a room in a house. Some provide a wide variety of services, others specialise in such activities as dog-handling. Size is, by no means, a sign of effectiveness and efficiency. But compared to US and some European security companies, British ones have a long way to go. The need for governmental regulation of security companies is not high in the political agenda and therefore it is not intended to discuss further in these hints.

The Working Time Directive

At present the Working Time Regulation does not apply to security companies in that they may opt out as "private policing" of the 48-hours maximum working week by "asking" officers to sign an opt-out clause. More often than not, security officers are expected to sign it.

However in January 2001, it seems likely that security companies will have no option but to adhere to the Working Time Regulations. The commercial implications of this are significant with some companies probably unable to conform. One security company manager estimates that it could cost client an additional 30% on a 2000 contract as the normal 56-hour per person week is reduced to 48-hours. There is thus a shortfall of 8 hours, which will have to be made up by employing another security officers at a cost to the client.