Study on the State of the Security Industry: The Present Condition of the UK’s Security Industry
During our 2021 study of violence against the UK’s security workers, our respondents told us time and again that low pay, coupled with difficult working conditions, were among the most challenging aspects of security work.
With this firmly in mind, we decided to take a detailed look at the industry, circa 2022, with the aim of producing a comprehensive overview of how issues such as pay rates, unfair working practices, levels of current SIA training and other difficulties create obstacles to productivity.
This study would be presented, as far as it would be possible, from the point-of-view of a UK-based security operative.
To this end, we asked over 2000 UK-based security operatives to complete our survey, making this one of the largest studies ever conducted in this area.
The data gathered would then be examined against the impact of recent challenges, such as the coronavirus pandemic, Britain’s departure from the European Union and the increased threat of terrorist attacks, particularly the 2017 Manchester Arena Bombing, which has been the cause of significant changes to training and working practices.
Once all the data were collated, we hoped to highlight some of the most pressing concerns surrounding the industry right now, as well as give those operatives a voice to share their concerns.
We are, as always, deeply indebted to everybody who took the time to answer our survey and share their perspectives with us.
Table of Contents
Questions Asked
The questions we asked ranged from basic information about the respondent, to more open-ended questions, for which the respondent was encouraged to offer their own opinions and insight.
The questions we asked our respondents were:
What SIA licenses did/do you hold?
When did you start working in the security industry?
Are you currently active within the security industry?
Is security work a full time, part time or occasional job?
Since the pandemic, are you working more frequently, less frequently, or about the same amount?
What was the rate of pay when you started working?
What is your current rate of pay?
What do you think is a reasonable wage for a door supervisor?
When is your SIA License due for renewal?
Are you looking to extend your license when it becomes eligible for renewal?
Those who stated that they had left the security industry were then asked:
When did you leave the security industry?
Was security work a full time, part time, or occasional job?
Why did you leave the security industry? (This question allowed for multiple answers)
What do you think is a reasonable wage for a door supervisor?
Do you think you will ever return to front line security?
The final portion of the survey was open to every respondent, whether they were presently active in the security industry or not. For this section, the questions were:
Do you think it is fair of the SIA to ask license holders to pay for top-up training?
How do you think additional training could be provided?
Aside from SIA license training, have you undergone any other security-related training?
What training would you like to see as an optional addition to SIA license training?
We felt that these questions were sufficient to effectively ‘take the pulse’ of the security industry in the UK at the time of writing.
The remainder of this evaluation, then, will focus on the answers given by our respondents to these questions. These answers will then be paired with supplementary data taken from several relevant sources, with the overall intent being to create a compelling and credible overview of the challenges facing the security industry, as well as those in its employ, right now.
Methods Used
Respondents were contacted via social media, email and those visiting our website, the entire survey was conducted online.
We received a total of 2,003 responses to our questions which, as stated earlier, makes this study one of the largest ever conducted in this area.
We used the first question, ‘What SIA licenses did/do you hold?’ as a qualifying question, as we specifically wanted to hear from those that had or have experience working in the industry.
One of the possible answers to this question was for the respondent to reply that they held no license at all – and that they had never held one. These responses were also filtered out, leaving us with a total of 1,898 viable responses.
All data shared or examined in this study is taken from the remaining 1,898 responses we received.
Recent History of the Security Industry
The SIA License Top-up Courses
As of 1st October 2021, all door supervision and security guard license holders are required to obtain a first aid qualification as well as additional ‘top-up training’ before their license may be renewed.
According to the UK Government, this extra training includes “safety-critical content” and “updated counter-terror training”, as well as “advice for emergencies and incidents” and “refreshed physical intervention training”.
Michelle Russell, then-Acting Chief Executive of the SIA (a position today occupied by Heather Bailey QPM) said of the decision,
“The security industry plays a vital role in public protection and the new qualifications will help ensure that this industry is recognised as a profession that is delivering on this. We will continue to work in partnership with the industry to deliver the best security standards possible”.
Our study of violence in the security industry, which was also conducted in 2021, concluded that further training for Britain’s security workers was urgently needed, so there are, in our view, many positives to this move.
What Motivated this Decision?
The decision was apparently made following recommendations made by the Manchester Arena Inquiry, which was conducted following the tragic terrorist attack that took place at the aforementioned venue in 2017 (a subject we will revisit in greater detail later in this study). The report, conducted by Sir John Saunders, has some harsh words for the venue’s security providers, stating,
“My overarching impression from the evidence is that on 22nd May 2017 and in the lead up to the Ariana Grande concert, inadequate attention was paid to the national level of the terrorist threat by those directly concerned with security at the Arena. The threat level was severe. That meant that a terrorist attack was highly likely”.
“None of those directly concerned with security at the Arena on 22nd May 2017 considered it a realistic possibility that a terrorist attack would happen there”.
“If SMG had paid greater attention to the threat level, it would have taken more steps to mitigate the danger of a terrorist attack in the City Room on 22nd May”.
Saunders’ report goes on to recommend that,
“As well as looking at measures aimed at preventing a terrorist attack, I recommend that the government should also look at simple measures to help to save lives should an attack occur. It has become clear to me during the evidence that it would be beneficial if employees of companies which have a Protect Duty, including SMG and Showsec, were trained in first aid relevant to injuries of the type caused during the Attack on 22nd May 2017”.
Everything would seem to be in order here. A major British venue was attacked by a terrorist, causing the loss of 23 lives, as well as many serious injuries. The government, responding quickly, commissioned a formal inquiry into the incident, which concluded that security was improperly trained for such a serious threat. From here, the SIA responded by adding extra training to its license holders over a period of 3 years.
However, what has been overlooked here is that the security operatives are often expected to pay for this extra training themselves – and that this is entirely non-negotiable.
The MEN report also highlights this concern:
“I recommend that employees should get further training after they have started their employment and they are paid for that training time. Training is important and it requires both employees and employers to take it seriously. Giving payment for doing it would encourage this and ensure that employees realise that employers take it seriously”.
Whenever we have called for extra training, we have recommended that said training be paid for (or at least subsidised) by the employers or the Government and that those undergoing the training be paid for their time.
One of our respondents suggested that “All additional training [should be] available, but included in [the] license fee”
Additional Costs
Security work is a rare profession that often requires its practitioners to pay for their own training and licensing. An SIA license can cost as much as £190, while the average cost of initial mandatory door supervisor training is around £200 – £300.
There is, then, a considerable expense involved in becoming a security operative, an SIA license needs to be renewed every 3 years, something that costs around £190 and with the top-up training, this will add £50 to the cost of the renewal.
One of our respondents discussed this, saying, “Other traders like electricians etc can justify costs for things as they earn a lot more. We earn minimum wage or just over, [and there are] constant upskill costs, even badge renewal costs. [It] just cannot be justified anymore”
We will discuss whether this expense continues to represent value for money in the section of this study titled ‘Rates of Pay’.
It is possible that this increase in the cost of training is a factor in the decline of SIA license renewals and applications that began in 2021 and continues at the time of writing.
To find out more, we asked our respondents if they planned to extend their SIA license when it comes up for renewal. 44.5% said that they would, while 17% stated that they would not.
Perhaps tellingly, 38.5% were undecided, a larger-than-expected number that indicates uncertainty and possibly a lack of faith in the industry and its future. Crucially, less than half of our respondents were totally committed to renewing their licenses, another fact that appears to have wide-ranging implications.
Examining the data further, we found that most of our respondents’ license renewals (38.7%) are due in 2023, with 30% due in 2024 and only 13% due to be renewed this year (2022).
Of those license holders that were due to renew this year, 55.7% were resolved to pay the fee and continue as usual, 28.7% were undecided and 15.6% had decided that they weren’t renewing their license.
For those whose licenses were due in 2023, the results were that 39.1% intended to renew and 15.6% were against it, with the largest number being those that were undecided, an amount of 41.6%. Again, this can be interpreted as a response to current challenges and negative trends experienced by those within the security industry.
For those whose licenses were due in 2024, 42.9% intended to renew, 39.3% were undecided, and 17.5% had decided that they won’t renew.
As the data demonstrates, operatives that are due to renew their licenses this year are statistically more likely to do so, while those due to renew next year are less sure, having not yet made up their minds. Is this related to the addition of mandatory top-up training and the fees it brings with it?
It’s worth noting here that even non-front line security operatives, such as managers and company directors, must also be SIA licensed (albeit with a non-front-line license), but this is no more than a formal letter from the SIA, their cost is just the renewal of the Licence.
SIA Licence Renewals
The period of January – June 2020 saw a 20.4% increase in license applications and renewals from July – December 2019. This upward trend continued throughout the period of July – December 2020 (13% increase) but since January – June 2021 (2% decrease) we have seen a decrease.
July to December of 2021 saw a sharp decline in the number of license applications and renewals, an amount that dropped by 22.9%. January – June of 2022 has seen a less severe decrease (only 2.1%), but a decrease, nonetheless.
Date | No. of Renewals | % increase/Decrease |
---|---|---|
July 2019 - December 2019 | 37279 | |
January 2020 - June 2020 | 46857 | increase of 20.4% |
July 2020 - December 2020 | 53876 | increase of 13% |
January 2021 - June 2021 | 52793 | 2% decrease |
July 2021 - December 2021 | 42935 | 22.9% decrease |
January 2022 - June 2022 | 42052 | 2.1% decrease |
The initial drop in applications and renewals coincides all-too neatly with the introduction of the new training – and thus, extra expense, in October of 2021.
As our other studies have demonstrated, there could be multiple causes for this decrease in applications and renewals(increased violence on the job being one, inadequate legal protections being another). However, we’re willing to consider the additional cost as perhaps among the most compelling and viable of these factors.
Additionally, the effect of free SIA license courses for the under-19s (intended as an initiative to help unemployed young people find work) could be boosting the above numbers, both in terms of applications and departures. The average age for security workers in the UK still falls somewhere between 36 and 40, so the effect of younger applicants is not yet overwhelming, but that does not discount their potential impact, as younger people would seem more likely to switch careers than their older counterparts.
To the latter point, it may be possible that unemployed people (regardless of age) are applying for licenses despite not really wanting them. In these circumstances, it is possible that they are being pressured into applying as a condition of their continuing to qualify for certain state benefits, or else being cajoled towards a difficult and highly specialised career that simply isn’t right for them, only to use the job as a ‘placeholder’ until they can find something they feel better suited to.
Other applicants may simply be looking to boost their resumés via some free training that demonstrates trustworthiness and a sense of responsibility.
Although admittedly hypothetical, neither instance would see a person applying for an SIA license with the intent of using it to work in security, something that would naturally affect the numbers of applications and renewals, but would account for 48.2% saying ‘jacket fillers’ (second largest answer) when we asked their reasons for leaving the industry.
In 2021, on average 72% of those that passed the SIA training course proceeded to apply for a license.
Date | No. of awarded qualifications | No. that resulted on paid application | % of paid applications |
---|---|---|---|
January 2022 | 11696 | 10113 | 86.4 % |
February 2022 | 13120 | 11141 | 84.9 % |
March 2022 | 16638 | 14324 | 86.1 % |
April 2022 | 13141 | 11080 | 84.3 % |
May 2022 | 14457 | 11831 | 81.8 % |
June 2022 | 13130 | 10353 | 78.8 % |
July 2022 | 12355 | 9202 | 74.4 % |
Aug 2022 | 11779 | 7593 | 64.4 % |
Sep 2022 | 12244 | 4658 | 38 % |
In January 2022, 86.4% of people that took an SIA course went on to apply for the license and this has been constant through most of the start of the year, but by September, that number had dropped to 38.0%. From these rapidly declining figures, it is possible to suppose that the industry is not as attractive as it should be to potential employees or is it something else? as we have seen a gradual decline in these numbers from June 2022.
SIA 2021/2022 Annual Report
In the SIA’s 21/22 Annual Report, Heather Bailey proudly states that,
“Performance this year, against a challenging background, was exceptionally high. We processed a record number of licence applications, and faced – and successfully met – unprecedented service demand”
She goes on to report that,
“In 2021-22 we issued 159,136 licences, which is more than we planned for based on previous years’ volume patterns”.
And,
“We completed 89% of licensing decisions within 25 working days of receiving a correct and complete application. This is slightly higher than the 2020-21 figure of 88%.”
While these points are factually accurate and are indeed potentially rather positive, the fact remains that many experienced operatives are departing the industry only to be replaced by others that perhaps lack the required training or skillsets.
Experienced security workers, perhaps already discouraged by low pay, regular exposure to verbal abuse and physical violence, lack of legal protections and the financial demands placed upon them by the ever-increasing SIA license fees, now find themselves working alongside inexperienced and possibly poorly trained individuals. These colleagues are only working the doors until something ‘better’ comes along, or else are only there because the job center demanded it of them.
We cannot say any of this for sure, but we can at least be guided by the data, as well as what Britain’s security workers have told us directly. Certainly, it’s an issue that warrants further investigation.
Security as an Occupation
Security, as any experienced operative can attest, can be a difficult job. Any security position requires a degree of self -confidence, good communication skills, self-control (tempered by a willingness, if necessary, to defend oneself and others), as well as keen observation skills and instincts. Not every person has these qualities, so simply ‘shoehorning’ unemployed people into such positions does nothing to help them, or the industry in general.
Some critics have complained that initiatives such as these, which effectively coerce unqualified people into positions of considerable responsibility, as well as ‘fast tracking’ younger applicants through free training courses leads to an excess of underqualified security workers who lack the requisite dedication and experience needed to discharge their duties in the proper fashion.
Of those respondents who no longer worked within the security industry, over 48% reported that their reasons for leaving the job involved the proliferation of ‘jacket fillers’ (a derogative industry term for security operatives who fill a role but are not able to perform that role especially well).
‘Jacket Fillers‘ are mostly seen by their colleagues as being inexperienced, poorly trained, unmotivated or unwilling to do the job, causing the rest of the team to work harder to compensate.
As one respondent told us,
“Too many staff these days have no experience at all, just training. You can’t train for a huge kick-off, you can either deal with it or not”
This issue was echoed by another respondent who said,
“[There are] Too many shirt fillers scared of getting stuck in. [I’m] Working with idiots who look at their phones for 99 percent of the shift”
Another told us,
“[There should be] Background checks [with] regard to previous experience. [Employers should] Look for suitable candidates with actual life experience that can do conflict management referring to real life experience. [The] Min age [Should be] 21”
We were also told by one respondent that there are, “far too many jacket fillers. Too many puff their chest out and use [their] badge as [an] excuse for violence towards others. Night staff sleep instead of keeping look out. Dirty, lazy staff let others down who do a good job”.
As is so often the case, the official story and the one we’re hearing on the ground don’t quite match up. Officially, the SIA is happy with the current numbers.
But the real story is that we’ll be needing more people to fill the roles that are available, the BSIA have recently said that we need to
recruit, train and license more than 62,000 new security officers over the next 12 months to keep up with the growing demand.
These individuals need to be ready and willing to work once they’ve finished their training, not just a number put through the system.
Rates of Pay
The issue of the rising cost required, either to begin a career in security or maintain one, is hampered by the fact that wages have not increased significantly enough to compensate for this.
Leaving aside the notion that few other professions require their participants to regularly pay considerable sums of money
simply to remain employable.
Telephone surveys conducted in 2021 by the SIA indicated that the average pay rate for a British security operative was £10 – £12 per hour.
They concluded that this pay rate has not improved significantly since similar research was conducted by the SIA itself in 2006.
Essentially, security operatives throughout the country are being asked to pay more money for licenses, training, and other intangibles, but are being paid the same amount (or not much more) as they were over 15 years ago.
Furthermore, the average pay rate in the UK, as of 2021, is estimated at £15.65 – considerably less than the pay of the average security guard.
At the end of August 2022, we visited several top employment sites in search of security work, paying particular attention to the wages being offered.
The pay rates we saw do seem to be rising, albeit in small increments. On the popular job site Indeed, we found jobs ranging from £11 – £15 per hour, with one company offering between £13 and £17. On Glassdoor, we saw lower rates ranging between £10 and £13, with the highest paying employer offering between £12 and £14. On Showsec, we again found an average hourly wage of between £12 and £14.
Searches for other occupations found that, even post-pandemic, supermarket staff were only being offered around £10 per hour. Chefs were only being offered roughly £11 per hour, with the same amount being offered to mail carriers and drivers.
Perhaps surprisingly, Amazon warehouse staff did marginally better, being paid almost £14, which matches the unsociable hours that many door supervisors are being asked to work.
Occupations that required significant training fared far better in their rates of pay, with plumbers being offered almost £18 per hour and electricians making just shy of £20.
In some respects, Electricians and plumbers are trained and have on going training and this is reflected in their pay.
Similarly, security workers and door staff have a licence and training to pay for, but their pay rates, do not reflect this in the way that those of other specialised professions do.
The McJob Effect
Steve Rimmington, ex-police officer and current owner and managing director of Repton Security Ltd wrote an illuminating article for WTD wherein he explained some of the issues that prevent security operatives from earning more. In the column, Rimmington states,
“By treating you as ‘Self – Employed’ they [employers] immediately save themselves 35+% that Repton as a bona fide employer has to pay out. This is a huge financial advantage in business because it means prices can be suppressed to keep professional companies out of the game and yet still retains a decent profit margin as no one is paying any Tax”.
He goes on to state that,
“It is the reason DS pay is far too low and it is too low because you as a DS are prepared to work and be exploited by others, just to be a few quid better off yourself. Had the PSIA 2001 [Private Security Industry Act] imposed mandatory ‘Business Regulation’ in 2006 as it should have, then DS pay would have risen at least in proportion to the NMW / NLW, which means that no DS would today be getting under £13.00 per hour”.
“The reality is that had the DS sector been allowed to be driven by the professionalism and quality of bona fide security companies, rather than the corruption of ‘Tax Evasion‘, DS pay would probably be £15.00 per hour and over today.”
These are good points that go at least some way towards explaining the issues that keep a security operative’s rate of pay far lower than it demonstrably ought to be. Security operatives are being paid much less than the market value of the duties they perform.
It seems to be little wonder, then, that long-term security operatives are leaving such a dangerous and difficult job, when the cost of licensing and training is increasing, but the wages are apparently not.
If this trend is not reversed or remedied soon, it seems likely that security work will increasingly come to be seen as a part-time occupation, or else a ‘placeholder’ job; the type of occupation referred to in popular parlance as a ‘McJob’.
This is a situation that would see an influx of operatives who are not serious about their profession and who therefore are unlikely to apply themselves with the requisite care and attention needed to adequately ensure the security of the public, something that could have truly horrendous consequences over the long term.
As with any profession, a mixture of innovation and experience is key. Security operatives with experience are vital, especially as security worker training (even with the addition of top-up training) is a baseline training level, with the expectation of those working to add to their training with experience and supplementary courses, we need to keep hold of as many to pass on the experince to the new recruits.
On this subject, one respondent said,
“Acknowledgment in years of experience should add a higher category of responsibility/authority/powers earned through experience and positive work creating a natural hierarchy within a door team”
There is one small upside, however. The gender pay gap is, in most industries, a serious obstacle to workplace equality. In the security industry, however, research from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), as well as our own detailed study into the challenges faced by female security operatives, shows us that women in security actually earn slightly more than their male counterparts. This, at least, is quite encouraging.
History of Pay Rates
To find out more about security workers’ rates of pay, we asked our respondents what their pay rate was when they started working in security.
Of those who started working between 1991 and 2000, when the average hourly wage was estimated at £7.49, 39.1% told us that they were being paid £8 – £9 an hour, with 22.4% making £9 – £10, 19.9% getting £10 – £12, 6.2% making £12 – £15 and a lucky 11.8% earning £15 or over.
By 2000, the average hourly wage had risen to £8.91, while the UK’s minimum wage was £3.60. Respondents who started working between the years of 2000 and 2010 told us that, as with the previous decade, £8 – £9 an hour was the most common wage, being earned by 29.4% of respondents. 27.8% pulled in between £10 and £12, while 25.0% of respondents were making £9 – £10, 9.8% were getting £12 – £15 and 6.9% were being paid £15 or more on an hourly basis.
In 2010, the average wage had climbed to £12.83, an increase of 43% over 10 years. The minimum wage had risen also to £5.93. Of those respondents who began their security careers between the years of 2011 and 2021, 40.1% informed us that they earned between £9 and £10 an hour, 26.7% were/are making £10 – £12 an hour, 24.0% earned £8 – £9 an hour, 5.8% said they made £12 – £15 and only 2.8% were making £15 or more.
From 2021 onwards, the average hourly wage is an estimated £15.65, while the minimum wage is £8.91. Of our respondents who started working this year, 39.4% are making £9 – £10, 30.3% are getting £10 – £12, 21.2% are being paid £12 – £15, 3.0% are being paid £15 or more, the same percentage as the lowest earners, those being paid between £8 and £9 per hour.
Between 2014 and 2021, there was an increase of 28.7% in the average wage throughout the UK’s working . Our data, however, shows an alarming lack of growth in the wages of British security workers.
While the median hourly wage for British workers has certainly risen, the security industry clearly hasn’t kept up with this trend.
To recap our results, in 1990, when the average wage was £7.49, an average wage for a security worker was £8 – £9, higher than average.
In 2000, the average wage was £8.91, and most security workers were being paid between £10 and £12, which is still very good.
However, from 2010, when the average wage was £12.83, most security workers were only making between £9 and £10, a marked decrease from the previous decade, as well as drop below the national average.
The decline continues to the present day, where the average wage is £15.65, but an average security worker’s wage is still languishing at between £9 and £10, just as it was in the previous decade.
At present, the national minimum wage is £8.91, meaning that security workers are, on average, only surpassing it by a modest amount, compared to 2000, when the minimum wage was £3.61 and security workers were routinely earning between £10 and £12.
We next asked our respondents what their current pay rate was. Predictably, given the industry’s slow response to inflation and rising wages, 38.9% revealed that they were presently being paid between £10 and £12 an hour. Encouragingly, 29.1% told us that they made between £12 and £15, while 18% made between £9 and £10. 12.1% earned £15 or over (the largest number yet recorded in this amount) and only 1.1% were revealed to be making between £8 and £9 an hour.
The comments we received from our respondents about their wages reflect this.
One respondent complained about,
“working 72 hours and picking up a wage where I would earn more money in McDonald’s”, while another agreed, stating that they “Can get [the] same wage in [a] basic, no hassle job – and more hours”.
Both respondents make a very prescient point. If rates of pay are not at least competitive with other sectors, why should security operatives be expected to take so many risks?
As one respondent told us,
“The pay isn’t enough for the danger that we deal with on a daily basis. There was no police support and doormen are always seen as the “bad guys” when [patrons] get hurt and a case goes to court. I have experienced this a few times myself as a female door supervisor being assaulted at work. The cases went to court and they [the defendants] either got off ‘scott free’ or got barely any charges – and I received little to no compensation.”
These complaints were repeated several times, as another respondent stated,
“An industry that isn’t respected in a race to the bottom in terms of pay – not to mention the police and courts [that] always side with criminals when things do go wrong”
Finally, we asked our respondents what they felt was an appropriate wage for a door supervisor. Most of our respondents (43.3%) stated that £15 – £16 an hour would be an ideal wage. This is in line with 2021’s average hourly wage of £15.65 and it demonstrates that our respondents weren’t being greedy or unrealistic.
The second most popular suggested wage, with the backing of 17.8% of respondents was £13 – £14, a more modest number, but still more than the average security worker earns at present – and more than most of our respondents claimed to be earning.
The higher end of the ‘appropriate wage’ question, which saw support from 14.1% of respondents was £17 – £18, which, given the training, regular fees, and dangers of the job, still doesn’t feel unreasonable to us.
0.7% suggested a wage of between £9 and £10, which perhaps speaks to a devaluation of the job in the eyes of some security workers.
These perilously low wages are even more objectionable given the rising levels of violence being faced by security workers in the UK.
We have found that a majority (84%) of security companies are taking no specific action to mitigate this trend and keep their workers safe. In any instance, pay rates clearly do not reflect the level of risk being faced right now.
Taken as a whole, this information is in many ways quite damning and speaks to a severe decline in industry wages that fails to compete with other sectors.
To find out more about security workers’ rates of pay, we asked our respondents what their pay rate was when they started working in security.
Of those who started working between 1991 and 2000, when the average hourly wage was estimated at £7.49, 39.1% told us that they were being paid £8 – £9 an hour, with 22.4% making £9 – £10, 19.9% getting £10 – £12, 6.2% making £12 – £15 and a lucky 11.8% earning £15 or over.
By 2000, the average hourly wage had risen to £8.91, while the UK’s minimum wage was £3.60. Respondents who started working between the years of 2000 and 2010 told us that, as with the previous decade, £8 – £9 an hour was the most common wage, being earned by 29.4% of respondents. 27.8% pulled in between £10 and £12, while 25.0% of respondents were making £9 – £10, 9.8% were getting £12 – £15 and 6.9% were being paid £15 or more on an hourly basis.
In 2010, the average wage had climbed to £12.83, an increase of 43% over 10 years. The minimum wage had risen also to £5.93. Of those respondents who began their security careers between the years of 2011 and 2021, 40.1% informed us that they earned between £9 and £10 an hour, 26.7% were/are making £10 – £12 an hour, 24.0% earned £8 – £9 an hour, 5.8% said they made £12 – £15 and only 2.8% were making £15 or more.
From 2021 onwards, the average hourly wage is an estimated £15.65, while the minimum wage is £8.91. Of our respondents who started working this year, 39.4% are making £9 – £10, 30.3% are getting £10 – £12, 21.2% are being paid £12 – £15, 3.0% are being paid £15 or more, the same percentage as the lowest earners, those being paid between £8 and £9 per hour.
Between 2014 and 2021, there was an increase of 28.7% in the average wage throughout the UK’s working . Our data, however, shows an alarming lack of growth in the wages of British security workers.
While the median hourly wage for British workers has certainly risen, the security industry clearly hasn’t kept up with this trend.
To recap our results, in 1990, when the average wage was £7.49, an average wage for a security worker was £8 – £9, higher than average.
In 2000, the average wage was £8.91, and most security workers were being paid between £10 and £12, which is still very good.
However, from 2010, when the average wage was £12.83, most security workers were only making between £9 and £10, a marked decrease from the previous decade, as well as drop below the national average.
The decline continues to the present day, where the average wage is £15.65, but an average security worker’s wage is still languishing at between £9 and £10, just as it was in the previous decade.
At present, the national minimum wage is £8.91, meaning that security workers are, on average, only surpassing it by a modest amount, compared to 2000, when the minimum wage was £3.61 and security workers were routinely earning between £10 and £12.
We next asked our respondents what their current pay rate was. Predictably, given the industry’s slow response to inflation and rising wages, 38.9% revealed that they were presently being paid between £10 and £12 an hour. Encouragingly, 29.1% told us that they made between £12 and £15, while 18% made between £9 and £10. 12.1% earned £15 or over (the largest number yet recorded in this amount) and only 1.1% were revealed to be making between £8 and £9 an hour.
The comments we received from our respondents about their wages reflect this.
One respondent complained about,
“working 72 hours and picking up a wage where I would earn more money in McDonald’s”, while another agreed, stating that they “Can get [the] same wage in [a] basic, no hassle job – and more hours”. Both respondents make a very prescient point. If rates of pay are not at least competitive with other sectors, why should security operatives be expected to take so many risks?
As one respondent told us,
“The pay isn’t enough for the danger that we deal with on a daily basis. There was no police support and doormen are always seen as the “bad guys” when [patrons] get hurt and a case goes to court. I have experienced this a few times myself as a female door supervisor being assaulted at work. The cases went to court and they [the defendants] either got off ‘scott free’ or got barely any charges – and I received little to no compensation.”
These complaints were repeated several times, as another respondent stated, “An industry that isn’t respected in a race to the bottom in terms of pay – not to mention the police and courts [that] always side with criminals when things do go wrong”
Finally, we asked our respondents what they felt was an appropriate wage for a door supervisor. Most of our respondents (43.3%) stated that £15 – £16 an hour would be an ideal wage. This is in line with 2021’s average hourly wage of £15.65 and it demonstrates that our respondents weren’t being greedy or unrealistic.
The second most popular suggested wage, with the backing of 17.8% of respondents was £13 – £14, a more modest number, but still more than the average security worker earns at present – and more than most of our respondents claimed to be earning.
The higher end of the ‘appropriate wage’ question, which saw support from 14.1% of respondents was £17 – £18, which, given the training, regular fees, and dangers of the job, still doesn’t feel unreasonable to us.
0.7% suggested a wage of between £9 and £10, which perhaps speaks to a devaluation of the job in the eyes of some security workers.
These perilously low wages are even more objectionable given the rising levels of violence being faced by security workers in the UK.
We have found that a majority (84%) of security companies are taking no specific action to mitigate this trend and keep their workers safe. In any instance, pay rates clearly do not reflect the level of risk being faced right now.
Taken as a whole, this information is in many ways quite damning and speaks to a severe decline in industry wages that fails to compete with other sectors.
Subcontracting
To some extent, subcontracting is inevitable in the field of security. ‘Security’ is itself something of a blanket term for a multi-faceted industry that involves many specialised niches and positions, most of which require separate licenses, as well as specialised training and experience.
Accordingly, not every organisation that picks up a security contract has the exact means to fulfil that contract legally. If the venue is larger than the number of staff the company has access to, for example, or if an operative with a specific license were required, but one was not presently employed by the company, some subcontracting would be expected.
From this vantage point, subcontracting would seem to be a fine endeavour that makes use of the security industry as a whole and ensures additional employment opportunities on an industry-wide scale.
However, in reality, it’s fair to say that the practice of subcontracting has gotten out of hand. As Steve Rimmington saliently wrote,
“I did a survey in my local city in 2010 and at that time I found that 68% of the DS I asked were taking cash for payment and the going rate at the time was around £8-9 per hour; Repton was paying £10.00+ through PAYE. However, it all came to a head for me when my clients were being offered DS (by the guys running their show from the front seat of a Range Rover), for less money than it actually cost Repton to pay its DS and although we never lost a client to this, I knew it was time to get out of the DS game.”
Subcontracting, then, can lead to smaller payoffs, especially in cases wherein the job is subcontracted multiple times (sub-sub-subcontracted). This affects pay rates even further, which in turn affects industry morale, which, as we have hopefully by now demonstrated, leads to good, experienced workers leaving the industry in large numbers.
To explore this subject further, we asked our respondents how they were being paid. While 54% said they were being paid through a security company, 2.8% confessed to being paid ‘cash-in-hand’, a practice that is at least partly responsible for driving down wages in the industry.
The SIA does run an Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), which is a voluntary scheme that formally promotes companies with a history of professional working practice and reliability. This is because, while an individual security operative will, in most cases, require an SIA license (together with the training that comes with it) to seek employment, a company does not require any formal license or certification to provide security services, other than the director needing a non-frontline licence.
This is a fact that theoretically could be at least partly responsible for some of the damaging subcontracting practices we’ve discussed in this section.
As we’ve demonstrated, some subcontracting is necessary, especially for larger companies that handle different-sized events and do not need (or cannot afford to employ) a perpetually large staff of security operatives over a long period. The practice of subcontracting allows positions to be filled on a short-term basis and at a moment’s notice, without negatively affecting the company’s bottom-line.
The negative side of subcontracting, however, involves a repeated delegation of jobs through multiple ‘middlemen’ that waters down pay rates, encourages a proliferation of ‘cash-in-hand’ jobs (along with the downturn in professionalism such jobs can attract) and makes it difficult for more honest, reputable security companies (in particular, those that wish to pay their workers fairly) to compete. This, in turn, harms the entire industry and, by extension, the venues, premises, patrons and public that the industry exists to protect.
Training a Security Operative: What Works and What Needs Work
We have often argued for security operatives to undergo regular training in addition to the base-line training given to every up-coming security worker. We have produced several studies and what we feel are reasoned arguments in support of this assertion.
There are, for example, a number of security operatives (as many as 68% according to one of our studies) that have not received any training beyond their initial SIA qualifications.
In some cases, security operatives may be employed for several years without ever being required to re-train, even as the world and the industry continues to adapt and evolve in accordance with the demand of changing times.
At present, training for an SIA license is largely classroom-based. Areas and skills covered by the training (for example, conflict resolution or appropriate use of reasonable force) is decided upon by the SIA.
As an organisation, the SIA does not offer any formal training, instead outsourcing this to a number of independent providers, all of whom are properly accredited. In this regard, qualifying for an SIA license is not unlike qualifying for a driver’s license.
As information technology becomes more prominent in our lives, a fact that is particularly commonplace in the post-pandemic period, many trainee security operatives are being taught remotely, mainly via e-learning resources.
These resources can be made available to the person via a desktop or laptop computer, tablet, or another device such as a smartphone.
It has been suggested by some industry commentators, particularly Sir John Saunders in his Manchester Arena Inquiry, that a greater level of scrutiny should be placed upon the process of e-learning, to ensure that virtual learning is as thorough and comprehensive as its physical alternative.
Although we generally feel positively about e-learning, we would concede that, without the presence of a physical teacher to check the progress of a student, it may be possible for said student to – literally and figuratively – ‘phone in’ their training and therefore miss vital information.
Once again, this speaks to a need for regular, ongoing training once the license has been achieved. A physical component to said training is vital, we feel, but this is not to devalue e-learning, which is a highly beneficial tool.
Many security operatives have told us that they would appreciate some additional training from the police. One respondent said,
“There needs to be a further working partnership between constabularies and the security industry, where SIA Door Supervisors are taught the same C&R techniques that the police are, which are effective and compliant [with the] law”.
Another stated,
“A bridge needs to be built between police and SIA as we work for the same cause. In all [the] places I’ve worked, our relationship is awful. The police never respond to calls, and when they do, they’ll hassle door staff instead of breaking up a fight and providing first aid.”
Our 2020 study of the relationship between door supervisors and police revealed that the relationship between the two professions is a complex one to navigate from either perspective.
At present, police are struggling from years of severe budget cuts that impact every area of police work, including their ability to build working relationships with security operatives.
However, were some hypothetical police training available, would security operatives be interested?
We put this question to our respondents, asking if they thought police training would be beneficial to security staffers on the front lines. Over 60% stated that they felt it would be.
Those who desired police training were then asked what kind of training they would like the police to provide. A large number (63%) said ‘conflict management’ perhaps indicating a lack of confidence in existing de-escalation training.
Other answers included use of equipment such as handcuffs (13%), tasers (6%), tear gas (1%) and batons (1%) and/or techniques such as searching a person for contraband (1%), drug awareness (1%), communication techniques (3%) and first aid (1%).
Roughly 8% of our respondents said they would like training from police in the proper application and understanding of the law.
We also asked our respondents what training they would like to see as an optional extra to their initial SIA training. In response to this question, 46% suggested conflict management, physical intervention, non-violent restraint techniques, self-defence and/or conflict de-escalation.
Although broad, we feel confident in saying that this response speaks directly to a need for more thorough, comprehensive training than is presently available on the initial SIA course.
One respondent suggested that training be made more realistic, stating,
“For the newer badge holders before they can work on the door, [they should be required to] pass physical and aptitude tests, realistic scenarios created in a safe environment replicating the confusion and chaos found in the job”.
Another respondent said,
“More training [is needed for] specific types of roles, i.e., the door supervisor course is designed for pubs and clubs, but the same training is given for security guarding”
We also heard that there was, in one respondent’s opinion,
“[A]Requirement for annual physical intervention top-ups and more mental health related training. Regular workshops [should be held] (on varying subjects, including drugs, terrorism, emergency/evacuation, Mental health issues etc) to help keep skills refreshed”.
Our earlier study of violence in the security industry corroborated many of these results, suggesting that there is a clear and abiding need for better conflict management and de-escalation training.
Here, it should be noted that the SIA does recommend that license holders undergo continuous training by their employer(s). As we have seen, this is an expectation that is not always met by employers within the industry.
Training Recommendations
In the Manchester Arena Inquiry, Judge Saunders recommends that security operatives receive further paid training after finding employment. The report stresses that paid training is preferable to unpaid training or training that must be paid for by the employee, as this underlines the importance of said training, in addition to representing fairer business practice.
To see how closely the Inquiry’s recommendations have been adhered to, we asked our respondents if they have undergone any extra training in addition to their SIA license training. While 44.3% answered “no”, a majority, more than 55.7% answered “yes”. This response indicates that, although things aren’t perhaps where they should be, the groundwork has been laid for the industry to get there.
However, as a follow-up question, we asked how this training was provided.
Sadly, 46% told us that they had organised the training themselves. While we applaud any security operative who seeks out (and probably pays for) additional training, it should be noted that only 34% told us that they had been offered this training by an employer. These numbers ably suggest that British security workers are more invested in their own job performance than the companies that employ them are.
In response to the above question, a further 5.3% stated that they had received training via an online provider, while only 5.4% stated that they had received additional training via the SIA.
Ongoing training is of paramount importance, both to security operatives and the businesses, premises, and individuals they protect. It does not seem in any way unreasonable to expect this training to be offered to security operatives by their employers or by the SIA and it is, quite frankly, a sorry situation that so many security operatives are seeking out and paying for their own training.
As one respondent said,
“Holders of an SIA license will, under normally their own expense, continue to study and continue CPD training because they WANT to make a difference to the place they both work and live.”
Another issue related to this point occurs regarding ‘in house’ security operatives (particularly CCTV operators and some retail security operatives) who do not, at present, require an SIA license to carry out their duties.
Although the training these un-licensed operatives receive is not necessarily flawed, it may not be conducted to the same standard as SIA training, and this could potentially impact the safety levels of the environments in which they operate.
The Manchester Inquiry suggests that the distinction between ‘in house’ and ‘under contract’ should be abolished, requiring ALL security operatives, ‘in house’ or otherwise, to qualify for and possess a valid SIA license. We’re inclined to agree, even considering the perceived need for improvements to said training, as well as measures that should be taken to alleviate the cost of said training to the operatives undergoing it.
Manchester Arena Inquiry report
Manchester Arena Inquiry report was released in June 2021 and made a number of recommendations, two of which were MR7 and MR8. These recommendations related to the security industry and how it could be improved.
Effects of the Manchester Arena Bombing
On the 22nd of May 2017, a suicide bombing took place at the Manchester Arena following a concert by American pop singer Ariana Grande.
This brutal terrorist attack left 23 people dead (including the attacker), almost half of whom were below 20 years of age. The youngest victim was only 8 years old. An additional 1,017 people were also injured, with 112 requiring hospitalisation. Some of those wounded have suffered life-altering injuries, while many more have been deeply traumatised and have suffered from a range of mental health issues, including depression, PTSD, and survivor’s guilt.
The bombing was carried out by 22-year-old Salman Abedi, a British-born Muslim of Libyan descent from Fallowfield. Abedi, along with his younger brother, Hashem, sourced and constructed the bomb themselves.
After being found guilty in 2020, Hashem Abedi was sentenced to life imprisonment, a sentence that featured the longest minimum prison term in British history, 55 years. This means that Abedi will not become eligible for parole until he is in his 70’s; a parole that, even then, is likely to be denied.
The monstrous attack shocked and saddened the British public, with many being quick to criticise the event’s security procedures.
Indeed, lax security can be seen to be responsible for the opportunity Salman Abedi took to conduct the attack, a fact that required – and soon received – top-level investigation.
Before we proceed with this section, we wish to make it known that the responsibility for this attack should be placed firmly and irrevocably upon the shoulders of those responsible for carrying it out, principally Salman and Hashem Abedi, and not on the security providers and emergency services involved.
Mistakes were indeed made, but the people tasked with protecting the venue and those inside it are not – and should never be – considered responsible for the attack itself.
As discussed earlier, the inquiry into the bombing did not spare the security operatives, nor their employers, much criticism. Indeed, it can be surmised that, had security been tighter and the operatives present more vigilant, the crisis could have been averted.
It is also fair to say that law enforcement operatives did not do enough to adequately police the venue on the night in question.
Given the escalating terrorist threat being experienced in the UK and throughout Europe at the time, a transport police sergeant had left instructions for the arena to be patrolled throughout the evening. However, these instructions were not properly adhered to.
For example, the transport police officer and police community support officer at the venue left the building together to take a meal break. This break should have taken no more than an hour, yet the pair were gone for more than twice that time.
Later, two other PCSOs present also took a break, literally passing the bomber on his way to the venue in the process and leaving the packed building with no police presence, despite instructions to the contrary.
Though police officers and PCSOs did return to the venue at varying times, when the bomb was detonated, there were once again no police inside the venue, all 4 of the officers were instead patrolling Victoria Station.
MI5 also launched an internal inquiry in an attempt to ascertain why warnings they had received about Abedi had not been acted upon, specifically addressing a gargantuan workload that enabled various warnings and information to go unheeded.
Indeed, the organisation had enough intelligence to regard Abedi as an imminent threat to national security. Family members and members of Abedi’s mosque had tried to warn authorities that he held extremist and violent views and was a potential risk, but, damningly, Abedi was not flagged as being a security risk or of having been radicalised.
Taking all of this into account, we can clearly see that the incident was not merely due to the venue’s security workers failing to do their jobs properly. There was a lot more going on than just that.
Final Conclussions of the MEN Report
However, the sobering fact remains that security did not do enough. Once inside the building, Abedi was spotted by security guard Mohammad Agha, as well as by a member of the public who was waiting to collect his daughter.
The member of the public, Christopher Wild, decided to confront Abedi himself. Though he appeared furtive and nervous, the bomber stated that he was simply “waiting for someone” and asked Wild for the time. Unsatisfied, Wild approached Agha and relayed his concerns.
Agha, for his part, had spoken to Abedi and found him to be suspicious but did nothing to remove him from the venue at that time. Wild later told the inquiry that he felt “fobbed off” by Agha’s response. Another bystander, Thomas McCallum, also described Agha as “dismissive”.
However, evidence shows that Agha did take Wild’s warning at least somewhat seriously, as he approached his colleague, Kyle Lawler, and discussed the issue.
Lawler tried to radio the control room, presumably in search of further information or instructions, but could not get through. He would try multiple times to get through, but each time could not do so. This raises further issues of proper working practice.
Lawler has stated since that he did not want to confront Abedi himself for fear of being branded a racist, a fact that again speaks to a lack of proper training. A person in a crowded area, acting suspiciously and carrying a large bag on his back represents a potential security risk, this is not a judgement based on skin colour, but on clearly visible evidence.
Nevertheless, it’s easy to consider the predicament Lawler found himself in. To single out a man of middle eastern descent during the racially charged climate of 2017 could see his job in jeopardy. Better training could have resolved this dilemma for him.
Shortly thereafter, Abedi detonated his device and one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern British history took place.
As this brief analysis has hopefully demonstrated, the attack did not occur simply due to inadequate security practices. True, Lawler could have taken more initiative, as could Agha, but the relative lack of police presence (despite one being ordered) and the failure of national security services to properly contain the threat posed by Abedi are also highly relevant factors.
The inquiry highlights this deficiency in the training of security operatives, particularly as it pertains to terror attacks, stating,
“Had Mohammed Agha been more alert to the risk of a terrorist attack, he had a sufficient opportunity to form the view that SA was suspicious and required closer attention. This conclusion, had Mohammed Agha been adequately trained, would have caused him to draw SA to his supervisor’s attention at this stage. This, in turn, would have brought into sharp focus that SA had chosen to position himself out of sight of the cameras”.
The Inquiry concurred that Mr. Wild’s suspicions, obviously well founded, had indeed been dismissed and not taken seriously enough by Mr. Agha.
At one point, Agha had tried to attract the attention of his supervisor, security operative David Middleton, but was unable to do so. Middleton, who was on the doors at the time, was roughly 30 metres away from Agha, who, the inquiry felt, did not do enough to gain his supervisor’s attention. CCTV footage does show Agha making a modest attempt to get Middleton’s attention but appears to give up following a minimal effort.
This deficiency is echoed by former counter-terrorism coordinator Nick Aldworth, who told Sky News,
“One of the things that frustrates me across that period – 2017 – was we’d seen this rolling wave of terrorist attacks coming at us from Europe and we’d been putting out a strong, strong message to people about ‘be alert, be aware – don’t be embarrassed about reporting things, go with your senses’. Of course, what it appears is that people heard that message and they responded, and they reported seeing this guy out of place, in the proximity of the arena – and nobody with responsibility for dealing with that seemed to do anything”
The inquiry concurred, stating
“Mohammed Agha should have done more immediately following his conversation with Christopher Wild. This was a missed opportunity. Mohammed Agha did not respond appropriately because he did not take Christopher Wild’s concerns as seriously as he should have. Responsibility for this rests on both Mohammed Agha and Showsec”.
Ultimately, everything in the report that concerns Agha, Lawler or Showsec speaks to poor or rushed training. If faced with a more immediately obvious threat, such as a drunken brawl or a person brandishing a weapon of some kind, it seems likely that the operatives in question would have been sufficiently trained enough to contain the disruption with minimum negative outcomes. However, the operatives’ training and experience clearly didn’t adequately cover terrorism, or the threat posed by same.
Mohammad Agha should have acted on his own suspicions and certainly should have given Christopher Wild’s concerns more consideration. Kyle Lawler should have approached Abedi from the perspective of a security operative doing his job, rather than being afraid to be accused of racism.
In response to the inquiry, the SIA released an official statement, in it the organisation states,
“The report findings provide learning and reflection for all concerned. It also makes some observations and recommendations about the regulatory framework and aspects of SIA’s approach to regulation in and prior to 2017.
Whilst many things have changed since 2017, there is always more that can be learned, and more improvements that can be made.
We are committed to working with the private security industry, law enforcement and other partners in a robust way to make sure the learning from the inquiry’s findings is taken forward.
We will continue our follow-up engagement with those involved, study carefully the recommendations published today, and consider any further steps we need to take.
Where there are recommendations about extending the SIA’s role or the legislation on the regulatory regime for private security, we will liaise closely with the Home Office on these”.
The Manchester Arena bombing highlights and recommends the pressing need for reform within the security industry, demonstrating that, especially considering police budget cuts and new responsibilities undertaken in the wake or the coronavirus pandemic, security operatives are woefully ill-equipped to handle threats such as the one posed by Salman Abedi in 2017.
The first of these two recommendations is MR7:
The requirement that only those monitoring CCTV under a contract for services need to hold an SIA licence should be reviewed. |
Sir John Saunders said,
“At present, a licence is only required by those who monitor CCTV under a contract for services. In-house CCTV operators do not need a licence. Although an attempt was made to justify the reasoning for this distinction by Tony Holyland, a senior employee at the SIA, I was unpersuaded. This distinction has been considered in the past, but no change has been made”
He went on to recommend that,
“In-house operators carry out the same job as those who monitor CCTV under a contract for services. The Inquiry heard evidence that more than one SMG employee who carried out monitoring of CCTVs asked for training but were not given it. There seems to me to be no persuasive reason why a licence should not be mandatory for those operating in-house as well as those working under a contract for services. I recommend that the distinction is abolished. All of those who monitor CCTV should be required to hold an SIA CCTV operator’s licence”
On the issue of companies employing those carrying out security work, Sir John Saunders said,
“The SIA runs an Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). This is a voluntary scheme and, while individuals who carry out security work may require a licence or licences depending on what functions they carry out, companies who provide security and supervise these activities do not”
And recommended that,
“While the ACS provides assurance that the member is a fit and proper person, there is nothing to prevent someone who is not a member of the scheme setting up and running a company providing security services. The SIA promotes good practice through its ACS. But there is no compulsion on companies to become a member or carry out good practice. While checks are made on how a company conducts its business when it applies to join the scheme, self-certification plays a considerable part in the process”
Since then, new training has been added and we are seeing the protect duty act being formed into some type of legislation, but this is probably not going to be enough to help an industry besieged by mass departures, insufficient training, unsuitable applicants being added to the workforce and vast expenditure expected from the operatives themselves.
The impact of the Manchester Arena bombing, along with the public scrutiny the events have placed upon the security industry and the recommendations made by Sir John Saunders are a golden opportunity for the security industry to make transformative changes for the better.
The Survey Results
In this section, we will analyse the survey and some of its key findings.
Of our respondents, the vast majority (91.4%) held door supervision licenses, while the next most-popular license was a CCTV operation license, held by 18.7% of our respondents.
0.9% stated that they had never held an SIA license. These, as stated earlier, were removed from the study.
Our results, then, are slightly less balanced than the industry itself. As of 2021, 66.5% of license holders held a door supervision license, 14.1% held a security guarding license and 12.5% were licensed as CCTV operators, but this is probably due to many having multiple licences.
In response to our asking them when they began working in the security industry, the majority (27%) had started working in the industry between 2016 and 2021.
15.5% had started working between 2011 and 2015. 12.4% had started between 2006 and 2010, 11.7% between 2001 and 2005 and 11.0% between 1996 and 2000.
0.2% stated that they had started working in the industry between the years of 1970 and 1975.
These results gave us a comfortable range to work with and ensured that we were getting long-term, likely multi-generational perspectives from our respondents.
We then asked our respondents if they were still employed within the security industry or if they had left it. At this point, the survey was split between those who were still employed and those who had left. In response to our question, 67.9% were presently employed within the industry, while 32.1% had departed from it.
In the interest of obtaining balanced views from both inside and outside the industry, we had hoped to get more respondents who had left the industry, but these former operatives proved difficult to reach and only amounted to about one third of our final total of respondents.
Of the respondents still working within the industry, 64.5% were working in full-time positions, 23.3% were working part time and 8.1% were picking up security jobs on occasional weekends.
1.6% were infrequently employed as festival security operatives.
One of our respondents told us that they work full time in security during the week, but that they also worked on a part-time basis at the weekends.
We were pleased to find that a healthy majority of our respondents were working full-time in the security industry, as this aided the purposes of our study.
Of the people who left the industry, a majority of 34.0% had departed this year (2022), 15.3% had left the previous year, 23.9% had left during the year 2020, with 12.6% leaving during the pandemic and 11.3% leaving before the pandemic began.
Of these respondents, 59.5% said that working in security had been their full-time occupation, 30.1% said that it had been a part-time position, 9.1% had been picking up occasional weekend work and 1.1% had worked occasionally as festival security.
We asked these respondents what their reasons had been for leaving the industry. They were allowed to select more than one option.
By far the most popular answer, with 69.0%, was the pay rate. The second most common answer was that there were “too many jacket fillers” (48.2%). 41.0% named licence renewal fees as a factor in their decision. 38.7% told us that they had found a better opportunity in another profession, while 35.4% mentioned additional training.
Less popular, but still commonly mentioned, reasons included levels of violence (22.4%), license expiration (20.2%), loss of enjoyment/fulfilment (17.8%), pandemic-related reasons (6.7%) and retirement (3.1%).
Predictably, the subjects covered in this study featured prominently among people’s reasons for leaving. Issues such as low wages, poorly trained, unmotivated colleagues, high license renewal fees and additional training (probably referring to the new mandatory top-up training) joined escalating levels of violence and the ongoing effects of the pandemic upon both the security industry and people’s personal lives.
When we asked these respondents if they would make a return to front line security at some point, 43.7% answered “maybe”, 36.2% said “no”, while 16.6% said “definitely not”. Only 3.4% said “yes”.
The fact that so few of our respondents would be willing to return is reasonably damning, but perhaps more interesting is that the majority suggested that they would consider it, presumably if conditions within the industry (such as better standards of training and an increase in pay) were improved.
For the sake of interest, we asked those who had left the security industry what hourly rate they felt was reasonable for a door supervisor.
37.4%, the majority in this case, said £15 – £16, while 23.7% said £17 – £20. 21.5% said that a DS should be making between £12 and £14, while 15.1% suggested £20 and above.
Those still working in the industry had also said £15 – £16. Although comparatively less respondents supported this amount, this was still the most popular amount and is much closer to the national average than the current average wage of a security operative.
Training Levels
For the 4th and final section of the survey, we allowed all participants (excluding those that had been filtered out) to give answers.
We asked our respondents if it’s fair for license holders to pay for top-up training. The answer, unsurprisingly, was an emphatic “no”, which was echoed by 83.1% of our respondents. This number dwarfed the 16.9% who agreed with the fees – a clear response from a large representative sample of the industry.
We then asked how our respondents felt this training could be provided. Only 5.8% wanted a paid course from a training provider, while 6.9% wanted a free course from a training provider. 17.2% said that the training could be provided online, while 18.6% felt that their employer should provide the training.
By far the most popular response was that the SIA itself should provide the training, a solution that received 51.5% of votes.
Some general comments we received included the following,
“There is more protection for violent and predatory customers than there is for door supervisors! SIA rules want us to work with both hands tied behind our backs”
“[There is] High performance expectation with minimal training and minimal pay. [We also get] Zero legal protection or support from venues or management. Lower pay, lower quality of staff, higher risk”
“At least 75% of doormen these days shouldn’t even be on the door. That’s why no one tidy wants to do the job. Years ago, if you was on the door with someone you knew they would be straight in behind you if the sh*t hit the fan. I worked in clubs of at least 500 people, in rough areas. [I was] on my own a lot of times, but usually [there were] two of us. Whoever worked the doors years ago had a reputation, not now though. Jacket fillers just want to act tough for the girls”.
“[The SIA should provide] PMA [training, that is] ‘Prevention and Management of Aggression’. When I worked in the autistic services within adult social services, this training (largely common sense) was invaluable in understanding triggers of negative behaviour and how best to calmly manage it, keeping physical intervention as the last resort”.
“Training is all good and well, but a lot of guards have day jobs and cannot attend courses. A lot of security guards have left [the job] because of the money and not being able to keep up with the training. A lot are scared of getting a criminal record that might [cause] them to lose their main job”
We also heard from one respondent who,
“Got my skull fractured in 3 places and [suffered] a brain hemorrhage. [I] literally was left in the gutter by the police/SIA/CPS/Security”
The results of this survey were, as ever, consistently eye-opening and enlightening. The responses we received covered much of the same ground and repeated many of the same concerns as our previous studies have, indicating that not enough is being done to mitigate these issues.
The good news is that interested parties may examine this study, as well as those that preceded it, hopefully with a view to meeting the challenges it outlines head-on and formulating viable solutions to as many of these issues as possible.
Conclussions
It doesn’t come as much of a surprise that the findings in this survey highlight low wages, the quality of the new recruits coming through and the cost of the top-up training are major contributing factors that mean that many are leaving the industry or planning to not renew their licence.
It’s difficult to put a real number on those that have left, but we are already seeing a decline in renewals over the last 18 months.
A job that was once well paid and worth the risk is becoming harder to justify, the levels of violence that many have to face isn’t worth the pay, experienced operatives with valuable skills and knowledge to pass on are leaving for better paid, lower-skilled jobs.
Too many are being asked to fund the new training themselves, We’ve outlined that wages have not increased significantly over the last 10 – 15 years or in-line with other sectors, and it is unfair to ask those to pay for the mandatory training.
But this isn’t due to the licencing system, this is down to the poor regulation of the industry.
We have to be realistic here, The Security Industry Authority has no influence in setting wages, this is down to market forces, but there are things that we can do to help the SIA do a better job.
This whole survey pivots around the 2021 MEN report and we believe this can be a key driver to improving things in the industry.
Both recommendations (MR7 & MR8) made by Sir John Saunders highlight the problems within the security industry.
We’ll start with MR7, Sir John said:
“The requirement that only those monitoring CCTV under a contract for services need to hold an SIA licence should be reviewed”
We have a licencing system for a reason, these practices of ‘in-house’ CCTV and security guards needs to be abolished.
We don’t know the numbers or the training levels of this secret workforce.
These individuals might be trained to a high level or they might not be trained at all, are the same vetting and fit and proper person checks that are carried out by the SIA performed on these unlicenced individuals? This is a grey area of the industry, and harks back to before the licence was brought in.
We need an industry where everyone is trained to the same level and licenced fully, with additional training provided by companies and making sure that we keep those with experience in the industry to pass on their skills to those coming through.
The second recommendation (MR8), Sir John Said:
“Consideration should be given to whether contractors who carried out security services should be required to be licenced”
This is the most important recommendation of the two, we have a licencing system that checks individuals working in the industry are ‘a fit and proper person’ but we don’t have similar checks for those employing those people.
Regulating the companies will improve standards, advocate companies to have more of a responsibility to those that they employ, promote continual training within, remove the practice of sub-sub contracting work and stop pop-up security companies undercutting those that are doing it properly, which should see an increase in wages across the industry.
Steve Rimmington said in his article
Had the PSIA 2001 [Private Security Industry Act] imposed mandatory ‘Business Regulation’ in 2006 as it should have, then DS pay would have risen at least in proportion to the NMW / NLW, which means that no DS would today be getting under £13.00 per hour”
We highlighted in the report that the SIA telephone interviews conducted last year concluded that wages haven’t increased since they did a similar survey in 2006, backing up Steves’ comments.
The SIA have openly said they support the recommendations in the MEN report.
- We need to act on these recommendations made in the MEN report.
- We need to push the government to implement these changes.
- We as an industry need to give the SIA the powers to carry out these recommendations.
But It won’t come from the SIA, they have their remit and it stops far short of what we are asking for, the recommendations in this report will be forgotten about in 18 months time, if we as an industry don’t do anything,
Nothing is going to improve until we push for change, and if anything will get worse as we are losing the experienced operatives, that are keeping public safety by a thin thread, to other sectors.
Another MEN type attack will happen, because we’re not learning from the mistakes of this one, we need to act now!
What are we going to do….
We have created a petition on change.org, supporting the need to put pressure on the government to carry out recommendations (MR7 and MR8) of the Manchester Arena Inquiry report and move towards fixing the problems that this survey has highlighted.
Once we have got a good number supporting the petition, we’ll be writing a letter to the home office and the Minister for Security, Tom Tugendhat that we have a support for this from the industry and we demand that the recommendations are brought into law, preferably by amending the Private Security Act.
We’ll be writing to them on a monthly basis until we get these recommendations into parliament, as we have said above this is perfect time to support these recommendations before they are swept under the carpet and forgotten about!
Click the button below and Please sign the petition, add your name to help us improve the security industry.
Acknowledgements
We are once again indebted to everyone who took the time to respond to our survey. By taking the time to offer your valuable perspectives and insights, you have helped give an authentic voice to our research, as well as raise awareness of real issues and concerns about the security industry. For this, as well as your tireless work on behalf of the British public, we thank you.
Our heartfelt thanks must also go to Steve Rimmington for his well thought-out and insightful WTD article, which we have quoted throughout this feature, along with Michael O’Sullivan at the TPSO magazine, Rollo Davies, Audax Body Cameras, Ian Fox and everyone that shared the survey through social media and at their workplace.
We’d also like to to give a special thanks these groups on facebook that helped share the survey far and wide, Doorman Diaries community along with the Bouncer Re-united page.
Lastly, we wish to thank every security operative currently working in the UK. It’s a tough job, but we’re glad you’re here to do it.