Dear Editor,
Given the many complaints of exploitation by security guards employed in both the private and public sector, it is my view that the government should rethink its position in awarding contracts to private security services.
Sometime ago, a security provider questioned the awarding of a contract to the highest bidder where the difference from lower to higher was fifteen million dollars.
It is obvious that such allegations will fuel the perception that contracts are awarded through nepotism and kickbacks, irrespective of eligibility, and the imbroglio at City Hall in the awarding of a contract for parking meters is not assisting in dispelling this perception.
Eliminating a third party will also save the government millions of dollars while providing security of tenure for these employees, and all it requires is an administrative unit managed by an ably qualified, honest and competent administrator.
One such person that immediately comes to mind is Francis Carryl, a former policeman, labour officer, IR manager and consultant. Francis has a wealth of experience and knowledge in both industrial relations and the labour laws, hence my advocacy which is also based on the fact that conditions of employment for security guards are mostly provided through labour legislation, and it would appear from the many complaints in the newspaper that most of these conditions are violated, thus depriving security guards of their legitimate entitlements.
A typical example will suffice. Guards employed on an hourly or daily basis who work 12 hour shifts are not paid overtime in excess of eight hours, but in excess of 40 hours, as if employed on a weekly basis.
The same goes for their leave entitlements, which are not calculated on the basis of every 160 hours worked or 20 days excluding overtime. And the list can go on, such as being fined for missing a shift and the giving of inadequate notice upon termination in violation of the TESPA, or the non-payment of NIS deductions into the scheme, which is grossly unfair since it deprives employees of their NIS benefits at age 60.
An administrative unit under Francis Carryl will ensure that guards are provided with the following:
(A) security of tenure;
(B) guaranteed payment of the minimum wage;
(C) NIS benefits during and after their tenure at age 60, plus a severance package;
(D) premium time for Sundays and public holidays in keeping with the law;
(E) option of working to age 65 when they become eligible for the old age pension, adding to their NIS pension;
(F) fewer instances of exploitation from unscrupulous supervisors;
(G) prompt payment of wages;
(H) less labour turnover;
(I) preventing the billing of the government for three guards when only two are provided.
The foregoing will not only help to motivate guards in performing their duties effectively, but also make them feel more valued as employees.
Yours faithfully,
D Sookdeo
