Ordeals facing security guards
THE RECENT announcement by the Minister of Labour that the national minimum wage for security guards would be increased effective August this year is a small but welcome respite. However, readers should not lose sight of the minister’s comments that there are a number of issues affecting the private security industry that must be addressed as a matter of priority.
Previously, I addressed matters pertaining to this industry in general, namely, concerning challenges faced by security companies vis-à-vis the regulatory entity, the Private Security Regulation Authority (PSRA). Back then I commented on the laxity of audit mechanisms for the industry, especially as it related to the standards of training for guards and their terms of service and welfare. Simply put, guards were being treated like crap, and as far as I am aware, not much has changed.
With the minister’s comments in mind and spurred on by the information I had gleaned about the industry, I decided to do further digging, and rather than speak to my friend who is deeply embedded in the industry, I went and sought feedback from guards employed to different companies.
The guards unanimously stated that it is their understanding that the national minimum wage specifies what they must be paid for their hours of work, and that any deductions from their wages must be by way of mutual agreement. They also stated that they should be in receipt of a formal statement of their monthly pay (pay advice slip).
QUESTIONABLE DEDUCTIONS
However, their reality is different. In many instances, their pay is sent directly to a bank account and they are not provided with a regular pay advice slip, leaving them in an untenable position if they wish to query their pay. Oftentimes they have to pay their employers to get a pay advice slip.
Now these guards are not idiots: they know the hours they have worked and what they should be paid. However, they are invariably short paid, and when they query these issues, they are given Anansi explanations as to deductions for uniforms and insurance.
Let me make it clear that it is the security companies that are supposed to foot the bill for group life and personal accident insurance, not the guards. Anything to the contrary is illegal.
RACKET
Some guards also described ‘a racket’ being run by some security companies wherein they are charged with breaches they actually or allegedly commit, brought before a kangaroo court [my words], fined hefty sums quite disproportionate to the breaches, and their pay docked at source. When asked about ‘due process, natural justice and the labour relations code’ I got a blank stare and a response to the effect of ‘ah wha dat’?
Evidently, there are private security companies being run by charlatans who employ ‘Nicodemus’ practices to exploit the guards and deny them of their due wages. Unfortunately, the guards are exposed due to glaring deficiencies in the regulatory framework.
So now I understand the minister’s comments regarding outstanding issues affecting the industry. Notwithstanding the increase in wages, with the security companies being required to pay more for insurance and statutory deductions they may well seize every opportunity to ‘recover’ these costs at the guards’ expense.
Every effort must be made to improve the regulatory framework governing the operations of these security companies. The exploitive practices must be curtailed, and the charlatans need to be ignominiously booted from the industry, permanently banned.
However, in implementing improved monitoring, audit and compliance mechanisms, I urge the Government not to over-regulate, as this could escalate costs and have a recessive effect on the industry and the job security of guards.