‘Working people’ ran through Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spring statement yesterday in the House of Commons. Will what’s proposed for those on benefits work – by placing them in security officer vacancies? Mark Rowe asks.
Such as ‘spending more on the priorities of working people’ and: “I will always put working people first.” Her statement included reform to the welfare system, a ‘package’ to save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget: “The Labour party is the party of work: we believe that if you can work, you should work, but if you cannot work, you should be properly supported.” If working people come first, it did imply that those not in work and on welfare came second, because (to quote her again), the Government is ‘on the side of working people’; although Rachel Reeves did add that the Government was ‘investing £1 billion to provide guaranteed, personalised employment support to help people back into work’; ‘most importantly’, she added later, ‘supporting more people back into secure work and lifting them out of poverty’. Replying, the Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride complained that the changes to welfare ‘are likely to harm many vulnerable people’.
The reform will be of interest to the guarding sector, as those on sickness and disability benefit might be ‘helped’ into service sector jobs, whether as guards, cleaners or other facilities management (FM) work. Reeves summed up with the party-political point that Labour were the ‘builders’ while all the other political parties were ‘blockers’; only Labour were ‘securing Britain’s future, protecting working people and delivering change’. What would the change look like, for those on benefit, and the guarding sector? The ‘helping’ of those on benefit into minimum wage or slightly higher (or lower, judging by the Security Industry Authority’s Operation Empower since last year into labour exploitation) cannot work because it ignores the nature of those on benefit, and of the supposedly low-skilled guarding jobs that those on benefits are assumed to be fit for.
First, the people. Some don’t want to work; if JobCentres require them to apply for jobs, they may do so, but make it impossible for any employer to take their application forward because they merely fill in their name and no more details. While some may be workshy, others you can gauge the calibre of at any bus stop on any housing estate in the morning, or, later, in any hospital or doctor’s surgery waiting room. Without making any moral judgement on them, we can say that they are physically or mentally or perhaps both less than well (although if anyone were to suggest they need mental health help, no matter how helpfully meant, they may resent that, even turn nasty). They are not going to get better soon, whether because their conditions (back pain, depression) aren’t easily or at all treatable, and in any case the waits for mental health therapy are commonly 12 months.
Even if they were well, they’ve not kept up with the modern world. They may have phones, besides spectacles, hearing aids, walking sticks or mobility scooters, but it’s stressful enough for them to negotiate the bureaucracies of welfare and the National Health, that have chronic problems of their own (such as that lack of capacity, hence waiting lists) and whose staff are unable or unwilling to connect with a patient to truly try to improve their lot.
So much for the human material. As for the job of guarding, it’s a fallacy to assume that those on benefits could fill the roles, if only they could be prodded (sorry, ‘helped’) into applying and reaching an interview (whether over the phone or in person). There lies the difficulty; gone are the days of plentiful jobs in private security and other services, requiring little or no skills except to stay awake (and night watch men could nod off). Once, offices had an odd-job man or woman, who made the tea for the building, and once they had gone round with the drinks, it was time to start the next round. Where are those workers? Vending machines are in their place, or the offices have shut and staff are working remotely. Railway stations, hospitals, had porters; where are they now?
Guarding jobs that once only required the security officer to sit in a gatehouse on a chair and raise a barrier arm, or drive a cash in transit van, and pick up and collect cash (pictured) are now requiring IT skills, to log events and manage itineraries (on a ‘trip sheet’, as the G4S advert for CIT drivers puts it); or customer service, to give directions, car park permits. To sum up, to use a slogan of the guarding contractor G4S, ‘the connected officer’ has to carry kit, and know how (and when) to use it, such as a body-worn camera. G4S has the contract in JobCentres, to defuse conflicts, including angry and upset people on benefits, the sorts that Labour’s reform is implying will go into jobs.
Security guarding jobs, like related jobs in hospitality not only need knowledge of how to use software – to bring in visitors, manage a fire alarm test – but the skills to field complaints. How often do you come across security officers, or staff behind the desk at hotels, who plainly aren’t very competent, and are unable to answer your query? How believable is it that someone will come off welfare to do a job calling for stamina and quick thinking, on your feet (literally) like the ones advertised on the G4S website, for SIA-badged security-stewards in Edinburgh, and Murrayfield stadium, and at Dunfermline Athletic FC, covering besides football, events such as Terminal V Festival, the Royal Highland Show, and Oasis and Sam Fender among concerts – to search customers for prohibited items (requiring that you know all that’s prohibited), reporting anything suspicious (more tech to master) and be the one who’s turned to when any customers turn disruptive (for that read: drunk)? Not very.
On a practical note, such job adverts take it for granted that the applicant has an SIA badge. Cost for applying, £184, after you’ve paid hundreds of pounds for the training courses. Unless the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is paying, that’s beyond the budget of someone on welfare who (for all the malicious stories about people flourishing on benefits) is more likely to have to suck on their teeth if they want a new pair of shoes, and look for a pair of £14.99 ones from Shoezone. And security sector vacancies, like the G4S ones quoted, for stewards and CIT drivers, may be part-time – requiring people to seek and retain more than one such job, adding to stress of people who may not be that resilient in the first place.
