.jpg)
TWO categories of workers who should be very happy about the introduction of the new national minimum wage and a five-day, 40-hour work week, would be domestic workers, and security guards employed by private security contractors. For them, such an announcement must be a huge relief, akin to being given a new lease of life and a due recognition of their dignity as human beings.
Beginning with the domestic worker whose grind in the service of private homes are so well known. The domestic worker group, employed at private residences for decades, has been at the mercy of employers, whose conditions of work could only be described as punitively harsh, and cruel. Many a female, would have answered to advertisements that would normally detail the specific functions required to be performed, along with established working hours, only to realise that far more had to be done over longer hours. Most have no choice but to accept this fait accompli. In fact, there have been reported instances of helpers, another description, being detained until they had finished their chores.
This worker, also, is usually the type that has few options in terms of job skills, and is mostly a single parent. So it is a case of eking out a means of survival. Their wages, normally, are determined by the employer, with no consideration given to unduly long hours of work, that mostly commenced between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. to a similar hour in the evening. This is a routine for seven days per week. Thus, they were fair game for merciless exploitation by employers, many of whom are known to include the aspect of demand for sexual favours. Many were forced to accept this added exploitation, or risk losing their jobs.
The second category, that of the security guard, needs no introduction. Their trials and tribulations are well known, from numerous complaints aired via both print and electronic media over the years.
This employment category comprises a significant number in the private sector; they are mostly women of the single-parent type, whose ages vary as from late teens in some instances, to as old as in the early 70s. Objectively, there are some good private security services that treat their guards humanely. These are known to transport their guards to their different locations, once they report to base; some provide a meal if the particular guard cannot be relieved. Given the high-risk criminal environment, a number of guards have been murdered at their sites over the years, and because of this and other welfare considerations, a few security firms have covered their charges with insurance, so that dependants can benefit in case of death.
But the above humane regime can only be applied to very few private security firms. The reports of guards being made to work “a double”, without even a meal is well known; being paid appropriately for holidays are non-existent; guards are being fined for lateness, due to good, substantiated reasons such as family emergencies, perennial; and being placed at locations without any proper shelter and lighting is well documented. These have been some of the main facts of private security guard employment in Guyana for many years.
Thus, it is very surprising that a particular private security contractor has been complaining about problems with implementation of the new stipulations, and even stating that his guards will have to be sent home, rather than seeking to introduce the measures that will bring great order and relief to all such services, including his. Did he and other contractors, when they met to form the umbrella Guyana Association of Private Security Organisations (GAPSO) that catered for their respective firms’ exclusive mutual interests, give consideration to the general conditions of their guards, especially with regard to improving their work conditions?
GAPSO’s declaration spoke of “preserving, protecting, and advancing the safety and security of lives and property present and having a presence in Guyana. We work with the civil police protecting our fellow citizens, corporate citizens, international organisations, their personnel and also visitors. Our organisation represents more than 50 percent of the people working in the security sector. Through standard training, we shall improve the effectiveness and efficiency of security services in Guyana”.
Lofty ideals indeed, but nowhere does it make mention of the interests, much less the welfare, of the thousands who faithfully serve its individual components under inhumane conditions.
One suspects that many of these contractors, among others in the private sector, generally did not expect changes that would have ushered in regulated protection for their employers. But it was always expected, as the PPP/C government has been constantly improving employment conditions for the nation’s workers.
It is expected that those employers of domestic workers, especially, will obey the new guidelines; for many of these employers are heartless, and will still continue to violate the laws. In such circumstance, their workers should be encouraged to bring such infringements to the attention of the Ministry of Labour for appropriate action. Security services’ owners must also comply with the new laws. They owe such improvements to their guards.
Beginning with the domestic worker whose grind in the service of private homes are so well known. The domestic worker group, employed at private residences for decades, has been at the mercy of employers, whose conditions of work could only be described as punitively harsh, and cruel. Many a female, would have answered to advertisements that would normally detail the specific functions required to be performed, along with established working hours, only to realise that far more had to be done over longer hours. Most have no choice but to accept this fait accompli. In fact, there have been reported instances of helpers, another description, being detained until they had finished their chores.
This worker, also, is usually the type that has few options in terms of job skills, and is mostly a single parent. So it is a case of eking out a means of survival. Their wages, normally, are determined by the employer, with no consideration given to unduly long hours of work, that mostly commenced between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. to a similar hour in the evening. This is a routine for seven days per week. Thus, they were fair game for merciless exploitation by employers, many of whom are known to include the aspect of demand for sexual favours. Many were forced to accept this added exploitation, or risk losing their jobs.
The second category, that of the security guard, needs no introduction. Their trials and tribulations are well known, from numerous complaints aired via both print and electronic media over the years.
This employment category comprises a significant number in the private sector; they are mostly women of the single-parent type, whose ages vary as from late teens in some instances, to as old as in the early 70s. Objectively, there are some good private security services that treat their guards humanely. These are known to transport their guards to their different locations, once they report to base; some provide a meal if the particular guard cannot be relieved. Given the high-risk criminal environment, a number of guards have been murdered at their sites over the years, and because of this and other welfare considerations, a few security firms have covered their charges with insurance, so that dependants can benefit in case of death.
But the above humane regime can only be applied to very few private security firms. The reports of guards being made to work “a double”, without even a meal is well known; being paid appropriately for holidays are non-existent; guards are being fined for lateness, due to good, substantiated reasons such as family emergencies, perennial; and being placed at locations without any proper shelter and lighting is well documented. These have been some of the main facts of private security guard employment in Guyana for many years.
Thus, it is very surprising that a particular private security contractor has been complaining about problems with implementation of the new stipulations, and even stating that his guards will have to be sent home, rather than seeking to introduce the measures that will bring great order and relief to all such services, including his. Did he and other contractors, when they met to form the umbrella Guyana Association of Private Security Organisations (GAPSO) that catered for their respective firms’ exclusive mutual interests, give consideration to the general conditions of their guards, especially with regard to improving their work conditions?
GAPSO’s declaration spoke of “preserving, protecting, and advancing the safety and security of lives and property present and having a presence in Guyana. We work with the civil police protecting our fellow citizens, corporate citizens, international organisations, their personnel and also visitors. Our organisation represents more than 50 percent of the people working in the security sector. Through standard training, we shall improve the effectiveness and efficiency of security services in Guyana”.
Lofty ideals indeed, but nowhere does it make mention of the interests, much less the welfare, of the thousands who faithfully serve its individual components under inhumane conditions.
One suspects that many of these contractors, among others in the private sector, generally did not expect changes that would have ushered in regulated protection for their employers. But it was always expected, as the PPP/C government has been constantly improving employment conditions for the nation’s workers.
It is expected that those employers of domestic workers, especially, will obey the new guidelines; for many of these employers are heartless, and will still continue to violate the laws. In such circumstance, their workers should be encouraged to bring such infringements to the attention of the Ministry of Labour for appropriate action. Security services’ owners must also comply with the new laws. They owe such improvements to their guards.
