BEING a security officer is a profession in its own right, and those doing the job are no less professionals than those working in other jobs.
But are they given due respect and recognition in the form of better welfare and a decent salary?
The answer is a definite "no".
Every organisation wants security officers, but, sadly, not many are prepared to pay for them.
The inadequacies of the industry pointed out by Mr Shaheedu Pakri are true, and the lamentable situation needs to be urgently attended to and rectified ("Changes needed to improve security sector"; May 7).
Security agencies should, at the outset, meet the clients and draw up a list of duties for the security officers.
There should be no deviation from this list once it is agreed upon.
Agencies should check and ensure that clients are not abusing their officers on the ground.
If there is abuse, the agencies should have the gumption to tell the clients to stop it, even if they risk losing the clients.
It is the duty of the agencies to protect their officers.
They should not accept clients who insist on employing only one officer to reduce costs.
They should point out the risks and difficulties of employing only one officer per shift.
There should be a minimum of two officers per shift, so they can take turns to patrol, attend to emergencies, or take breaks without leaving the guard post unattended.
Guard posts should ideally be purpose built, large enough to accommodate at least three personnel (two officers and one supervisor on rounds) and include facilities like a toilet, wash basin and shower.
They should also protect the officers from inclement weather.
It is the joint responsibility of the security agencies and clients to ensure these minimum facilities are accorded to the officers so they can do their job well.
Security agencies should take pains to find out their officers' grievances, in order to reduce the turnover rate, improve productivity and boost loyalty.
Pavithran Vidyadharan
