Problems in the Industry

Many of the larger private security companies blame problems in the industry on smaller companies, alleging that they are responsible for cutting costs and getting involved in dubious practices which negatively affect the reputation of the industry as a whole.

While some smaller companies survive by cutting costs, and some are involved in abuses and illegal practices, much of the industry’s problems cannot be solely attributed to this group. Some of the problems are caused by particular elements within the industry that, because of the absence of comprehensive regulation, abuse their position and tarnish the reputation of the industry. Other problems are related to poor management and supervision and the fiercely competitive nature of the industry.

In 1990, ‘Sybrand’ Louis van Schoor, a private security guard and former policeman, was convicted of 22 counts of murder. This was not an isolated incident, and such abuses are common among certain elements in the industry.28

Commenting on allegations that security guards assaulted staff at the Wild Coast Sun casino, an editorial in the Natal Mercury read: "The crime wave has boosted the private security industry. While a large number of firms perform a useful service, an unacceptable number appear to overstep the mark."29

At a meeting of the Security Officers’ Board on 30 August 1996, the registrar of the Board told members that it was impossible to determine how many of the registered security companies were "registered for convenience" (i.e. registered but not providing security services).

While the number of companies registered for convenience are probably small, the possibility that these companies are misusing their position, and are involved in illegal activities, poses a threat to general stability. The existence of such operators strengthens allegations that sections of the private security industry are involved in third force activities, which impact negatively on the credibility of the industry.

According to a senior member of the SAPS, some 99,5 per cent of the alarms (installed by the private security industry) that the police respond to are false. The officer said the police were concerned about elements within the private security industry that are not part of a recognised security association, and did not maintain adequate standards.30

Graph 3: Number of panic button alarms responded to by members of the SAPS in 1996

According to Superintendent Teddy Munsamy, a police officer in KwaZulu-Natal, about two hours of the average police officer’s working day are wasted running around in response to false alarms belonging to private security companies.31

Some companies advertise and sell an armed response service, but do not have armed response units or personnel. These companies in effect sell a service that they then rely on the police to perfom.

Graph 4: Number of alarms reponded to by the SAPS (in the commercial and domestic sectors) in 1996

The training of private security guards is regulated by the Security Officers’ Board. All training must be conducted by training institutions which are accredited with the Board.

There has been much criticism of the standards regulating firearm training. A minimum of five hours of training are required for guards to be permitted to carry firearms while on duty. Firearm licences are issued to companies, not to individual guards. Licences are issued on the recommendation of the Security Officers’ Board. The company to whom firearm licences are issued, is not legally bound to prove the nature of the firearm training that its guards have received.

Firearm training is not the only area where training standards are inadequate. A commission of inquiry into the death of sixteen people and the injury of eighty, at the Tembisa train station (in Gauteng) in July 1996, found that the actions and conduct of the private security guards at the station had contributed to the tragedy. Commenting on the training of the security guards, the commission found:

"The D grade guards have such limited training that they either could not foresee that their conduct could result in the injury and death of commuters, or that if they could foresee the consequences of their conduct, they were unable to act in a manner necessary to avert such consequences."32

A manager of a security company said his company did not deploy E and D grade guards because the company felt that these guards had not received adequate training to perform their functions effectively.33 (E grade security guards receive the lowest level of training, A grade guards the highest.) According to the Security Officers’ Board’s training officer, Doug Nielson,34 nearly 100 000 security officers are not trained for the level of work they undertake, and three-quarters of all security officers only have E grade qualifications. The lack of effective regulation allows companies to employ E grade guards, who are then armed and deployed without further training.

In-house security guards are not governed by the standards set by the Security Officers’ Board, and no statutory regulatory standards apply to this category of security officer. In-house security personnel may perform security functions for a private business. However, in performing their duties, such guards often interact with the public. Regulatory standards are required to protect the public from harm as a result of the lack of training of in-house security personnel.

Another problem are fly-by-night training centres which offer training for security guards on a commercial basis. Many of these centres are not recognised by the Security Officers’ Board. People undergo training at such centres only to find that their training is inadequate, thus preventing them from registering as private security guards. Such training schools are prominent in rural areas. According to Doug Nielson, non-accredited training centres have taken advantage of loopholes in the legislation. "These operators can only be charged with fraud if they wrongfully inform their trainees that they are accredited by the Security Officers’ Board."35

There are allegations that sections of the private security industry are involved in third force activities. In July 1997, the then Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki, said he believed that certain elements within the industry were involved in political and criminal destabilisation.36

Although many of the allegations remain untested, information that has surfaced since 1990 tend to support these. For example, reference was made to a private security company’s involvement in third force activities in the Steyn report presented to the then State President, F W de Klerk, in 1992. A 1994 report by the Goldstone Commission referred to the involvement of elements within the private security industry in political violence.

Security Officers’ Board members who were interviewed, feel that a commission of inquiry should be established to deal with these allegations as they blemish the reputation of the industry. They also feel that such a commission should investigate the allegation that some private security companies acted as front companies for the apartheid government.37

In December 1995, state tender board officials, referring to lucrative government contracts for security companies in Mpumalanga, claimed that companies had launched smear campaigns against each other in an attempt to beat their competitors.38

In March 1997, the Office for Serious Economic Offences raided the offices of six large private security companies. The raids were part of ongoing fraud investigations involving R300 million. One hundred security companies’ offices were searched as part of the same investigation.39

Some private security companies secure contracts by undercutting competitors. Undercutting is usually achieved by reducing a company’s running costs.

One of the main ways of cutting costs is by the underpayment of wages. Guards working in the private security industry have historically been badly paid and often work long hours. In April 1996, new labour legislation compelled employers to limit working hours and increase salaries. (Prior to April 1996, new and smaller companies were exempt from industry wage agreements.)

Larger security companies accuse fly-by-night and smaller companies of tarnishing the reputation of the industry by not adhering to existing labour legislation. However, investigations by the Security Officers’ Board, as well as labour court rulings, indicate that the underpayment of guards and other illegal labour practices are not limited to small companies only.

Working conditions within the industry are a matter of serious concern. The Security Officers’ Board has played a significant role in addressing the issue by fining companies that do not adhere to working condition standards. The Board only has the power to fine offending companies, however, and cannot seek restitution for affected employees.

One security company manager said the problem was that unscrupulous companies found it cheaper to pay a fine, than to pay their employees the statutory minimum wage.40 Companies that are illegally cutting costs by underpaying their employees often also cut costs in other areas such as training.41

The high staff turnover and the victimisation of employees have made the unionisation of the industry difficult. One Board member cited this as another reason why the Board devoted significant attention to the monitoring of labour standards.

Many police officers who leave their jobs find work in the private security industry. While there is no basis to assume that this movement has any sinister motives, the movement of such persons into an industry that has a coercive capacity and plays a role similar to state law enforcement agencies, raises a possible threat to stability.42 This movement could also enhance informal networks between police personnel and their former colleagues employed in private security companies.

Much of the responsibility for ensuring professional standards within the private security industry is left to the market. One private security company owner explained that standards in the industry were often related to the maturity of the market served by these companies. Companies are forced to provide a more professional service where the market is experienced and ‘mature’.

Leaving the responsibility of standards to the owner of a private security company does not pose a problem when the service impacts only on the private person or business that contracts this service. However, it is not sufficient to leave the maintenance of standards to market forces alone when this service is used to police the general public.