One Man Doors: A ‘Cost Vs. Safety’ Issue

We are, for the moment, living in an uncertain economy. The global Coronavirus pandemic (and, here in the UK, the expenses of Brexit) have cost most of us dearly. Pubs, clubs, bars, and other venues are opening once more, but in many cases, profits are not what they once were.

Faced with these invidious circumstances, venue owners are looking to save money any way they can – and one area that seems to suffer as a result is security.

It goes without saying that physical spaces need security, but security, like anything else, comes at a price. Sometimes, people who employ security operatives try to compromise in this area by, for example, hiring one operative instead of two.

Right away, the venue has slashed its security budget by 50%. By hiring a single door supervisor or night watchman, owners can ensure that their premises are protected, while at the same time save some money.

They probably rationalise the decision to themselves by noting that “things have been quiet lately anyway”, and that it’s “unlikely that they’ll need more than one person handling security”.

This thinking is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it defeats the very reasoning behind hiring security personnel in the first place. People don’t buy security equipment and hire security personnel to protect them from an existing threat, they do so as an act of preparedness IN CASE a threat presents itself.

After all, who waits until they’re being burgled to install a burglar alarm? A burglar alarm is installed when it isn’t needed, in case it is needed at some point, just like a smoke alarm or car seatbelt.

Hiring only half of the recommended security presence is akin to turning off a smoke alarm at night or driving around without a seatbelt. There is no immediate danger, but for how long will that be the case?

We’re not here to chastise cash-strapped venue owners who make these choices out of desperation – and we would never criticise any security worker simply for taking a job. Nevertheless, we would be remiss in our duty to Britain’s security workforce if we didn’t point out that hiring a lone security operative (especially a door supervisor), puts that operative at a much greater risk and increases the risk to the patrons and the premises as well.

If a security operative is tasked with manning a large site alone, for example, who do they call for assistance in the case of an emergency? Should they be assaulted, or fall unconscious due to unforeseen health issues, what happens then?

Additionally, should serious harm befall either the operative or the premises due to an insufficient security presence, venue owners and companies stand to lose far more money than they may have saved by skimping on security expenses in the first place.

Lone workers in the UK serve all sectors. In fact, their numbers stretch to an estimated 8 million people. They work as drivers and health care professionals, they stack shelves and keep warehouses stocked, they deliver our parcels, post, and Friday night takeaways. In almost all cases, lone workers are at a slightly higher risk than others of their profession.

Security workers, however, are already some of the most at-risk workers in Britain. Amplifying the risk to them is a dangerous prospect indeed.

If this sounds like we’re overreacting, keep in mind that some lone security workers have actually died while on the job. In 2014, a security worker named Arthur Ebirim, died after being overcome with carbon monoxide fumes from a petrol generator whilst guarding a disused nursing home.

In the same year, another lone worker, Javiad Iqbal, also died from carbon monoxide poisoning after freezing conditions and a broken generator forced him to light some barbeque coals for warmth.

Perhaps most shockingly, lone security guard Abu Sammour was brutally murdered by three people in 2018.

Damningly, many employers neglect to mention to the security workers they hire that they will be working their shift alone. This is bad working practice on the part of the employer(s) and ought to be stopped. Until it is, we recommend that security operatives might try asking outright if the employer expects them to work alone or, perhaps more tactfully, they can inquire as to with whom they will be working. If the answer comes that they will be working alone, we recommend taking the protective step of informing any relevant party that may not already be aware of the situation.

For operatives working in more remote areas, we recommend looking into products such as the ‘OK Alone’ app. This innovative smartphone app reminds lone workers when it’s time to check in with someone and even has a ‘man down’ function that alerts monitors if it has detected no discernible movement from the user for a set period of time.

Even when equipped with such innovations, lone workers can find themselves at risk from increased stress and mental health issues. In order to avoid this, we recommend that all employers familiarise themselves with the signs of stress and keep in regular contact with their lone workers.

Where possible, we also recommend arranging semi-regular or regular face-to-face meetings with lone workers (although this is admittedly difficult to do safely due to the pandemic). Lone workers should also be included in any team activity, training exercise or meeting that has the potential to affect them.

Lone workers, by definition, are people who work by themselves, but they should never be left completely alone.

Lone workers (especially those in security) are far more vulnerable to violence than other employees. The lack of available back-up can greatly impact a security worker’s ability to de-escalate or effectively manage a potentially violent encounter – and this must be considered every time a lone security worker begins a new shift.

Lone security workers often work late nights and/or early mornings, which are optimum times for criminals to attempt robberies. They also often work in areas that are known to be dangerous or violent, hence the need for security. Neither situation should be faced alone.

The risks aren’t just taken on by employees, either. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment for their employees. Failure to comply with these laws can ultimately represent an existential threat to a company. Whatever the issues being experienced by lone workers, employers have a legal duty to help their employees.

Perhaps the best way to mitigate these risks is to produce a lone working policy specific to your company or organisation, ensuring that it is in accordance with the law and affords any lone workers the support they both need and require. By being specific to the company in question, this policy can also be tailored to fit any peculiarities unique to the job. Such an approach formalises the position and working practices of a lone worker within the company and helps to ensure that no one gets left behind.

Employers must ask themselves if cheaper costs are worth an overall decrease in the level of safety provided. Is it worth rolling the dice when it comes to the security of venues, property, members of the public and security operatives themselves? Put simply, it’s an issue of priorities.

The truth is that, in Britain right now, there will be organisations that cannot afford more than one security worker, as well as security workers that cannot afford to turn down much-needed work. In such cases, the danger to both parties is increased. However, through a combination of care, diligence, and better working practices, at least some of that risk can be effectively mitigated.