One area which I have numerous close friends associated with is manpower security. It is pure speculation/rumour, however it is widely believed that government issues contracts for security services to tenderers who bid at 20-21$ per hour for static security services. The work is then apparently sub-contracted out to companies for even less - probably in the order of 16-$17 per hour.
Given the current award rate for security officers is $15.82 it is very difficult to see how these subcontractors are surviving. Unless of course they also are subcontracting the work out to individuals who are operating as companies.
The questions are: Is the government aware exactly who are providing these services on their projects - and what unknown security risks are running around within the security service providers? Given the tiny margins involved - are security providers fully insured - including those subcontractors they bring to the job? Given the degree of subcontracting, can any government department be certain the security staff they are being given are certified to the appropriate level to do the job?
How much risk do these issues present? If an unqualified, unlicenced security officer who is a sole trader paying no tax under a false ABN accidentally injures someone with a weapon they are not qualified to use, I suspect we will find out relatively quickly. Of course its all speculation......................
Cheers
Steve
6 comments:
This practice goes way beyond government - its well established in the commerical world as well.
I have been involed with the security industry for over 25 years both as a guard and security manager. In my latest role as an operations manager i have talked to a number of managers of potiental clients whilst touting for their business, i have shown these manager our insurances and specific security requirements. A majority of these manager said that their only concern was the price and indicated that as long as all appeared well they would not bother about any perceived problems, I.E. if a company used sub contractors that were not insured then that would be their problem not our companies. In other words their is a lot of companies that hide their head in the sand when it came to compliance and company issues. What happened in State Rail does not surprise me.
Anon, competing against non-compliant companies is an ongoing problem. You carry the cost of compliance, while your competitors enjoy the lower operating costs of non-compliance. Despite instances like state rail, managers keep putting their own and their companies credibility and survival (in the industry) at risk. Much more 'public' transparency is needed (is who won a contract and what was the winning bid worth, and who will actually be performing the work) in order to rectify this situation. At least then, the operator can be scrutinised more fully and weaknesses like you have described can be exposed.
Cheers
Steve
And this practice also makes things better and it will goes a very long way. Great!
Post a Comment