Dear Editor,
The plight of security guards raised by Andaiye et al in the Stabroek News has prompted me to pen this response (‘Women security guards especially endure appalling conditions of work’ July 25).
In terms of conditions of employment there is no discrimination between male and female security guards since employers are required to comply with minimum standard legislation for wages, holidays with pay (leave) overtime and premium time. Disparity in wages may exist in cases where pay exceeds the minimum wage but guards have no control over this. This can be considered as discriminatory since it violates the principle of equal pay for equal work irrespective of gender.
Under the Trade Union Recognition Act, security guards can be represented by any union of their choice, except those sworn in as supernumerary constables who fall under the Police Act for the purpose of discipline. It is a known fact that some private employers and security services knowingly exploit their employees by depriving them of their legitimate entitlements. Others may do so unknowingly.
Conditions of employment for security guards are determined through a contract of employment that can either be verbal, written or implied. In cases where the contract is verbal employers cannot escape liability for violations since the law requires strict compliance with record keeping, which ascertains whether security guards are employed on a monthly, fortnightly, weekly, daily or hourly basis, and whether they are paid appropriately.
As an example, the law requires that security guards employed on a daily or hourly basis be paid overtime in excess of eight hours each day and not in excess of forty hours each week, which is applicable to security guards employed on a monthly, fortnightly or weekly basis. So, a security guard employed on a daily or hourly basis who works four twelve-hours shifts is entitled to sixteen hours overtime and not four hours as seems to be prevalent in some security services. In other words, the contract of employment determines the rate and method of payment.
Under the Holidays with Pay Act, all security guards are entitled to annual leave. This is another area where guards are shortchanged. The act provides for security guards employed on a daily or hourly basis to be granted one day leave for every 20 days or 160 hours worked respectively. Contrary to belief, guards employed on this basis are not entitled to a day off, but are entitled to eighteen days leave if they worked for 365 days and not twelve days as obtains for the monthly and weekly paid guards who are entitled to a day off. Again, this a prevalent practice in some security services, so you can imagine the gain to these so called respectable employers at the expense of those poor security guards. Do the maths for one security guard, then multiply it by the hundreds per day, week, month and year.
For the security guard, every day is a normal working day including Sundays and Public Holidays. Security guards are entitled to double time and time and one half for Sundays and Public Holidays only if they work at factory locations. Including Sundays, the holidays that attract double time are Eid-ul-Azah, Phagwah, Christmas Day, Easter Monday, Good Friday and Freedom Day. All others attract time and one half. Another area of exploitation is the withholding of NIS deductions. This practice is also prevalent and borders on criminality since it affects the eligibility for NIS pensions. I agree with Red Thread that security of government buildings should fall under the purview of government as previously obtained. I vividly recall one particular security service awarded government contracts that were involved in the malpractice of deducting NIS from employees and utilizing it to pay wages rather than remitting it to the NIS office.
To add insult to injury some security services fine their employees as a form of discipline in violation of Section 18(3) of the Termination of Employment and Service Pay Act. Imagine not being paid for being absent on a shift and having to pay a fine as a consequence. I wish to commend the Red Thread for bringing up this issue.
Yours faithfully,
D. Sookdeo
