The abuse of security guards is nothing new in Guyana. Security guards are amongst the most put upon, abused and exploited categories of workers. There have been reports of devious schemes created by security companies to exploit their guards for their own ends. Conditions of work, in some cases are downright deplorable. Guards are often required to remain at post for as many as twenty-four consecutive hours, hungry and exhausted. At the end of the pay period, many of them find that they are unable to meet even their most basic living expenses.
The relationship between some security guards and their employers is often underpinned by some of the worst forms of exploitation. The officially designated minimum wage for an entry level security guard is $100 an hour. In some cases, there are incentives that are added to that minimum wage. In the absence of those incentives, however, that entry level security guard has to work for a period in excess of one hour in order to be able to afford ten pounds of sugar!
There is a dimension of sheer callousness to the manner in which some security outfits treat their guards. There are cases in which a guard, having worked continually for eight, even twelve hours, is then asked to ‘help out’ by working for an extra period. The guard agrees (to refuse would probably mean dismissal), is caught sleeping by a Checker during his or her fifteenth consecutive hour on duty and is cited, charged and monies from his or her ‘incentive bonus’ are deducted. It is an exercise in both deceit and dishonesty designed to create the impression that guards’ meagre wages are usually ‘topped up’ when the real truth is that much of what is ‘offered’ on top of their basic pay is often reclaimed by their employer through an insidious regimen of offences and penalties.
It is not simply a matter of ensuring that the guards remain awake on the job. There are reports that Checkers are instructed to ‘find ways’ of catching guards asleep; that is to say that they must report a certain number of ‘sleepers’ every day in order that at least a portion of the incentive payment never enters the guard’s pocket. In effect, some Checkers are required to lay dubious sleeping charges against guards.
Dismissal is not a common option for offences such as sleeping on duty. It is usually far better for the proprietor of the security service to keep the guard in the service, continue to find infractions, real or imagined and continue to impose ‘fines.’
Some clients are known to object to having guards work at their homes or offices for more than eight consecutive hours; in which cases some security services have been known to shift the guards from location to location so that the client is none the wiser regarding the fact that the new guard is arriving at the location from another site where he or she may just have completed a twelve-hour shift.
But the vicious cycle of misery and exploitation does not end there. Guards must often buy their own uniforms, sometimes at inflated prices. It is also common knowledge that the owners of some guard services not only refuse to make their ‘employer contribution’ to guards’ NIS payments, but also withhold ‘employee contributions’ which are deducted from wages and ought correctly to be paid to the scheme. Similarly, some security companies are seriously adrift in terms of the payment of guards’ income tax deductions to the Guyana Revenue Authority. NIS contributions are, in many, cases, the only form of saving that a security guard ever manages to accumulate, and some of these cases of the non-payment of contributions have been pending for several years. The sloth of the courts inhibits the dispensation of justice, decidedly denied in their case on account of the protracted delay.
Women are believed to comprise the majority of security guards employed with private companies. Like their male counterparts, they too are often required to remain at post for extended hours. At a certain state-run institution, female guards in the employ of a private security service have been left at post long enough to have to wash themselves and their clothing on location.
Clients too are frequently short-changed. There is the practice – it occurs particularly at night and at office locations – where guards are shifted around like a pack of cards in order to maximize coverage in the face of shortages. What this often means is that some locations are left without guards or with fewer guards than are required under the contract. Of course, the client, in many cases, has no way of knowing that they are being short-changed.
They pay for the absent guards anyway. This is not an occasional occurrence. It is a routine exercise in crass dishonesty inflicted on both state and private clients. Some elements of this practice were referred to in the Auditor General’s 2009 Report.
Security guards have no formal representation, though there has been talk for years about some form of oversight by the Guyana Police Force. In the absence of such oversight some security services operate pretty much as laws onto themselves. The Ministry of Labour usually entertains complaints by security guards but little has been done over the years to bring an end to what has now become a practised regime of some of the most odious forms of abuse, exploitation and victimization known in workplaces in Guyana.
