The state of security

In the UK, we like calling a security guard a security officer. We expect judgement, professionalism and the ability to deal with difficult situations. Then we build contracts around paying that person as little as possible.

Changing the title is easy. Developing the person takes investment.

A short course gets someone started. Competence develops through experience, training, supervision and support. We expect people to fund their entry into the industry, take on responsibility and sometimes face violence. Then we wonder why it is difficult to attract and retain good people.

I think we should aim to pay security officers £20 an hour. I want security to be a career people actively choose, with expectations and opportunities that justify that pay.

But the companies need to look at themselves too.

There are companies competing for the same work by continually lowering the price. They win a contract, discover there is barely enough money to deliver it, and then complain about the quality of the people they can recruit. They helped create those conditions.

If you keep selling security as the cheapest available hour of labour, that is what customers learn to buy.

There is also a question about entry into the business. A frontline security worker needs the relevant training and licence. An owner who stays off the front line can obtain a non-front-line licence without completing a licence-linked training course. Licensing checks still apply, but company approval through the SIA’s Approved Contractor Scheme remains voluntary.

That deserves scrutiny. The company is taking responsibility for supplying people who protect other people.

I want anyone selling security to demonstrate that they can run a security operation. Can they recruit suitable people? Can they train and supervise them? Can they pay them correctly? Can they support them when something goes wrong? Those expectations should apply to established companies and new entrants alike.

Then there is subcontracting. A customer buys security from one company, which passes the work to another. Sometimes there are more layers. Every layer needs to explain what value it adds and what responsibility it carries.

Who knows the person standing at the door? Who briefed them? Who answers when they need help? How much of the customer’s money reaches them?

We need good people doing security because the consequences affect everyone at the site. Communication, judgement and the ability to stay calm matter. Higher standards need the funding to sustain them.

So where does that money come from?

Some of it has to come from customers paying for the service they expect. Some of it should come from changing how security companies operate.

If the officer is on site doing the work, why do we need such a big fucking head office to organise it?

I think AI can take on much more of the routine administration: organising rotas, checking availability, preparing invoices, chasing documents and flagging problems. As those systems prove reliable, companies should be willing to remove management layers whose work has become unnecessary.

Experienced supervision and incident response still need people who take responsibility. I want more of the money going towards those capabilities and the person on the front line.

And companies have to make that choice. If every saving becomes another discount to win the next contract, the officer stays where they are. If every saving becomes additional profit, the officer stays where they are.

£20 an hour needs a business model behind it. The customer rate has to cover employment costs, training, support and a sustainable profit. Technology gives us a chance to change those economics. We have to work through the numbers and deliberately put some of the gains into pay.

I want higher standards for security companies, fewer unnecessary costs and better-paid officers.

If we expect someone to protect people, we should build a business that can afford to recruit, train and keep that person.