Any talk of wages within the contract guarding world usually results in furrowed brows, a good deal of head scratching and, ultimately, desperation. With many contractors forced to take on work where the charge-out rate has been squeezed to breaking point during the tendering process, officers all-too-often feel the kick-backs from that in the form of shrinking pay packets. It’s a huge problem – and one which, if truth be told, the industry has failed to address with any real gusto.
Until such time as there is a level playing field for all tendering contractors – as proposed by last year’s ‘Contract of Substance’ (SMT, April 2002, pp20-23) – and end users stop looking to the lowest rates for the service, this is always going to be an issue.
Hopefully, The Security Institute’s forthcoming ‘Best Practice’ guide to the procurement of manned security services (‘TSI to develop new guidelines on guarding’, News Update, SMT, December 2002, p7) will help point the way forward for procurers. Look out for an exclusive report on this initiative in a forthcoming edition of SMT.
In the meantime, what the industry needs is some kind of benchmark against which salary levels might be measured, debated and improved upon in the future. Recognising this requirement, the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and c2c Recruitment have joined forces in undertaking a thorough survey into the terms and conditions of salaried staff in the guarding sector.
Prior to this survey – the ‘Manned Guarding Salary Survey 2003’ – being undertaken, limited information was available to all. Often times, the salary level required to attract the right quality of candidate has (at best) been based on what the given organisation was prepared to pay from an historical perspective. Worse still, pay rates have been set on the back of industry rumours and conjecture.
BSIA chief executive David Dickinson has stated that having a comprehensive survey which can be updated each year will assist guarding companies to better determine their internal pay and benefits levels due to the trends it unearths, and be useful in determining costs associated with the larger contracts needing specialist site management.
Background to the survey
In the main, the BSIA member companies surveyed were the larger concerns, all with revenues in excess of GB pound 2 million (and the majority over GB pound 20 million). In all, 18 of the 95 guarding contractors on the Association’s books submitted information, covering a high percentage of the sector revenue.
For a few jobs listed in the survey questionnaire there was insufficient data to publish meaningful results. This applies in particular to internal and Control Room managers (for whom the geographical spread of locations gave too many regional variations for reliable findings to be published). In addition, site managers are consolidated into two categories covering those in charge of up to 20 security officers and those managing anything over and above that benchmark.
The first batch of security operatives whose wages are examined happen to be the mobile supervisors. Supervisors, of course, are responsible for visiting sites, ensuring adherence to assignment instructions and agreed service delivery. In essence, they respond as and when necessary to incidents and issues raised by customers and security officers alike. The role of the supervisor is crucial to the success of the contract and, therefore, that of the guarding company.
According to the c2c Recruitment survey, contractual hours for mobile supervisors range from 40 to 60 hours per week. 53% of those companies surveyed run contractual hours in excess of 55 hours which, it must be said, is hardly in line with the Working Time Directive. 73% of firms don’t pay overtime – a telling statistic. 50% of participating contractors operate a shift pattern, 40% a rotating shift system and 10% permanent night working.
In most cases, pay rates were found to be based on the hourly doctrine (figure 1), with only one company paying a weekly rate and two further private sector contractors offering a monthly salary to a specific individual or group of individuals. There’s also a definite geographical trend to the results, with London – as you’d expect – offering the highest pay rates (although the Midlands also fared well).
Interestingly, no companies questioned included mobile supervisors in any form of bonus scheme.
Control Room and site supervisors
Control Room supervisors are office-based security personnel whose responsibilities include rostering, and receiving or responding to calls from officers and clients alike. Where appropriate, they might also deal with payroll and other queries, issuing and managing uniforms and other items of security ‘kit’.
The contracted hours for Control Room supervisors varied quite widely, from 35 up to 60 hours per week. 60% of those guarding firms surveyed task their Control Room managers to work over 55 hours, while 65% of them don’t pay overtime. 50% of the 18 BSIA member companies who responded to c2c’s questions operate a rotating shift pattern.
Again, pay is based on the hourly rate. Compared with the mobile supervisors, there was a much greater diversity of rates between the minimum and maximum hourly rates (as shown in figure 2) and much smaller regional differentiation. On a positive note, two companies surveyed included this group as part of a bonus scheme, one incorporating them into the management scheme and the other paying a fixed annual figure.
Site supervisors manage a group of security officers on a given customer’s premises, assuming responsibilities for all contractual requirements (including manning and service delivery). It’s usually the case that they’ll report to an operations or on-site manager. The c2c survey shows that contracted hours on site range from 40 to 60 hours per week. 60% of responding companies operate contractual hours in excess of 55, with only one company paying overtime for anything in excess of 40 hours. 65% of firms surveyed don’t pay any overtime at all, while 50% operate a rotating shift pattern.
Hourly rates also dominate for this group. There was a much greater diversity of pay rates between the minimum and maximum hourly rates. In London, the minimum rate of GB pound 4.50 was some way below the maximum GB pound 14.39. Scotland has the lowest rates, with a maximum GB pound 7.05 per hour being paid out.
Only one company surveyed paid a bonus to its site supervisors, which is bestowed upon the receiving supervisor as a fixed annual figure.
What about the site managers?
The c2c survey breaks down the site managers’ function into those who manage up to 20 security officers on a single client site, and those who administer the management function to 20 officers or above through a team of shift managers/supervisors on either a single or multiple locations for a lone client.
The contractual hours for site managers covering less than 20 officers ranged from 35 to 60. When compared with the previous supervisor categories, a higher percentage (36%) of respondents worked less than 45 hours. 55% of respondents have contractual hours in excess of 55 hours.
Only two responding BSIA member companies operated a shift system for site managers, indicating that while the managers work days it is the site supervisors who cover any specific shift requirements.
80% of companies surveyed pay this type of site manager on a salaried basis, the remainder on an hourly rate. In truth, the minimum and maximum pay rates for some companies often reflected a single contract. Again maximum figures in, say, London (at GB pound 30,000) dwarfed the minimum (of GB pound 16,200).
There were similar differences in the Midlands, with the minimum rate of GB pound 14,040 eclipsed by the highest paid site managers who receive GB pound 29,000.
For site managers looking after 20 officers or more, almost 80% of companies surveyed suggested that these individuals had contracted hours of 50 or less, with only 22% having contractual hours above 55 hours per week (figure 3). Importantly, none of the 18 companies surveyed pay overtime – indicating that, while contractual hours may be lower, the actual hours worked might be greater than the contractual hours.
A high percentage (33%) of guarding firms offer a bonus scheme, all of which are paid on an annual basis as either a percentage of salary or a fixed sum payment.
Again, 80% of companies who were questioned said that their site managers are paid annually (figure 4). Only two companies paid a bonus, one a fixed monthly amount and another 5% of annual salary.
Operations and regional managers
To ensure that comparable positions were looked at within the survey, and in particular because there is such a multiplicity of job titles, c2c requested information on responsibilities of the grade of staff encompassed by operations managers (external).
The results might be summarised as: the number of operations managers within each company (and their individual responsibilities) was based on the number of hours (28%), the revenue managed (21%), the number of clients or client sites (21%) and the number of staff (21%) – the remainder of respondents identifying it on geographic needs.
In most cases (60% of the 18 BSIA companies quizzed), the operations manager is directly responsible for the rostering of staff. In addition, while over 70% of site managers are tasked with reviewing client rates, less than 40% were found to be responsible for the profitability of the contracts, people or area they manage.
Average contracted hours stand at 45, which is a pleasing finding, though again this figure can span anything up to 60 hours per week (figure 5). Although 60% of responding firms suggested that their operations managers work less than 45 hours, many are required to go in for additional hours to cover the needs of the business. At this level, it was found that no companies operate a shift system.
What about the money side of the equation? All operations managers in the BSIA firms surveyed are salaried employees. As is evident from figure 6, there were clear differences in respect to the maximum rates, which reflected the pay of individuals rather than the group in its entirety. More commonality was to be found between companies at the minimum pay levels.
A significantly higher proportion of guarding companies (Over 70%, in fact) included this group of employees in a bonus scheme (50% paying on an annual basis and the remaining half via a percentage of a given individual’s salary).
Regional security managers
The degree of responsibility at this level is – in over 60% of companies – determined on the level of revenue for which the individual is responsible, with the remaining companies determining it on the number of hours of staff.
In only one of those companies surveyed by c2c is the regional manager directly responsible for rostering, with this duty being undertaken either by a centralised function or by the reporting operations managers. Over 80% of individuals in this category are responsible for the commercial aspects of the client, with 75% also taking on full responsibility for the overall profitability of the given region. Mostly, the regional manager has between two and six direct reports.
In all cases, contracted hours were less than 45. Here, there was a markedly higher range between minimum and maximum salaries. In the north east and north west, for instance, maximum salaries are reportedly GB pound 45,000 per annum, with the minimum quoted at GB pound 27,000. A reflection of the different levels of responsibility of the job holders.
Bonuses are paid by all 18 companies surveyed, with the percentage paid (at an average of 25%) significantly higher than for the other, more junior operational managers.
Improvements must be made
Having conducted the initial survey (which also takes in sales executives and sales managers), Ian Whitmore – managing director at c2c Recruitment – told SMT: “Much has been stated about the impact of licensing on the terms and conditions of security officers, and the improvements that may be necessary to reduce turnover and ‘professionalise’ the industry. By updating these survey findings annually, it’ll be interesting to see whether the changes to the industry engendered by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will impact upon the terms and conditions for supervisors and managers.”
According to Whitmore, unless improvements are witnessed over the next few years, the industry will not attract or retain the quality of candidates that will be essential in achieving the objectives set for the private sector by the Government and the SIA.
That is one particular scenario the security industry cannot allow to develop.
