The rise of Flex-work and the UK’s Security Industry

Industries across the UK are facing a recruitment crisis due to socio-economic changes over the last couple of years. The country’s security industry is among the brunt of this crisis. James Oliver, Head of People Resources at a recruitment company, reflects on how these socio-economic challenges are fuelling recruitment issues in the security services sector.Brexit coupled with the COVID pandemic resulted in many security officers being placed on furlough. This “time-off” allowed them to reconsider their place and career choices and highlighted significant challenges a security officer navigates daily for the industry. The shifts are long and are often high-risk, with little to no on-site support. The compensation is relatively low considering their exposure to risks, compliance and licensing costs, and expenses. As a result, we see a ‘great resignation’ in motion as workers want higher pay with lower stress.nbsp;Seven critical challenges to recruitment in UK’s Security Industrynbsp;COVID-19:To maintain social distancing at public venues, many security officers were placed on high-risk front-line roles with additional responsibilities. Many officers contracted COVID from resulting exposures.nbsp;Brexit:Brexit has rendered a significant impact on labour across the UK. Among other industries, the security sector is perhaps the most affected. Many EU workers have either not renewed their visas and have returned or are not seeking work in the UK.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Costly compliance:Workers in the security industry are typically engaged on a zero-hour contract and paid minimum wage. Appropriate compliance and licencing required for Security jobs are expensive to a point where they can be ‘unaffordable’ amidst rising tax rates, national insurance, and household expenses. As a result, many experienced officers prefer to seek work in other industries.nbsp;Compulsory top-up training:As of October 2021, all security officers must complete SIA top-up training in their respective fields. On average, this training costs £150 per officer, in addition to the £190 licence renewal fee. In addition to paying the additional cost, officers are often required to take unpaid time away from their jobs to attend top-up training.nbsp;nbsp;Licensing backlog:COVID and resulting furlough coupled with office closures have created a backlog on applications and training processing such as license renewals. Without appropriate licensing security, officers can take shifts. Other personal expenses, such as living costs, taxes, and insurance, however, continue to remain punctual. Not being able to meet their costs and fearing a negative impact on their credit scores, many offices have gradually moved out of the security industry.nbsp;High expectations:Those above have contributed to higher client and employee expectations. Both sides expect a quicker turnaround in successful placements, more options to choose from and higher negotiation opportunities.nbsp;Subcontracting cascade:Contractors in the industry often cannot meet clients’ demand for trained and licenced security officers at specific locations. To honour their contract with the client, they resort to engaging other contractors to fulfil the requirement at a fraction of the cost committed by the client. This endeavour creates a client-biased environment where although the employer gets their demanded security officer; however, the security officer receives only a tiny fraction of the wage decided between the client and the primary contractor.The solution to the crisisOliver suggests that the solution to UK’s security industry recruitment rests in somewhat keeping up with the tides without any clientcontractor bias.Both sides are justified in their demands. Clients want well-trained and licenced security operatives at their premises on different shifts. Licenced security operatives wish for fair wages, reduced risks, and more options (changes and locations). Both sides also have their own financial and social challenges. The solution to the crisis is ‘Flexibility’.nbsp;Flexibility of shifts :Depending on the job site, clients typically request 247 security cover divided into two shifts: business and non-business hours. If the officer on the shift is trained and has an active SIA licenced, the client does not prefer the same officer carrying out all the shifts in most cases. Dividing these shifts into paid sub-shifts on different days allows security officers to choose what day and timeslot suit them best. This arrangement benefits both the client and the security officer. The client can have a continuous shift cover, while security officers can manage their work-life balance better. The security officer can, for instance, pursue the required SIA top-up training without having to take unpaid time off.nbsp;nbsp;Flexibility in engagement:‘Blow-outs’ jeopardises the security at a client’s premises. A blow-out occurs when a security officer commits a security shift but does not appear for duty. It is essential to realise that blow-outs are not related to an officer’s professionalism – a blow-out can result from circumstances beyond control. However, a blow-outs impact can be significant for a client. Flexibility in engagement implies that an alternate is readily available to take their place if a particular officer cannot make their committed shift. In this manner, the client does not lose security cover, while the officers do not feel pressured to make their shifts regardless of their situation.nbsp;Flexibility in fair earning:With the option to choose as many paid sub-shifts as their situation allows, the security officers can better manage their expenses without demanding too high a wage. For example, consider Mathew, a security officer with a monthly cost of £1,500. With this flexible work arrangement, Mathew will need to work at least four days on 8-hour shifts at £12 per hour to meet his expenses. If Mathew decides to work for 6 hours a day, he will be able to exceed his monthly payments. This flexible earning allows Mathew to manage his monthly income without burdening the employer.The recent shifts in ways of doing business and earning money brought about by socio-political and economic circumstances have highlighted a new norm, typical 9-5 may not work for many people. The need of the day is to consider a flexible work arrangement that caters to the needs of the worker in a manner that does not jeopardise the employers profitability.nbsp;