Good Honest Dollar $$

One might have thought that private security guards are supposed to ensure the safety of the general public on premises which they patrol.

Apparently not – at least not in the case of those employed by Olympic Security at the Seattle Bus Station, who just stood there and watched as a fifteen year old girl was beaten unconscious and robbed in a vicious assault last month.

Three parties share in the blame for this appalling incident: Metro Transit, the guards themselves and Olympic Security (the guards’ employer), which should certainly be stripped of its contract.

Taxpayers do not pay for guards to stand around and do nothing.

 
The incident
Footage of the entire incident can be seen here.

Shortly after the girl in question was seen talking to one of the guards (apparently pleading for help), another girl approached, launching a vicious assault in which the victim was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked in the face. Meanwhile, a third person stole her bag, including mobile phone and iPod.

Aside from having one guard call for help, none of the three guards on duty did anything. They simply stood there and watched. Even after the victim lost consciousness, they did not bother to check if she was OK.

Their excuse: strict orders preventing them from intervening in any confrontation - a claim supported by both Metro Transit and Olympic Security, employer of the guards in question.

 
Three parties at fault
Pathetic.

All three parties involved had a duty of care regarding public safety. All three failed abysmally and share in the blame:

 
• The guards themselves.

To be sure, the guards themselves are not police and do not have the same rights or authority as members of the police force – especially in cases like these involving physical contact with members of the public. Furthermore, it should also be acknowledged that failure on their part to comply with strict orders could have serious legal and/or disciplinary repercussions, and that they themselves are not therefore in any position to disregard these orders willy-nilly.

Still, they have no excuse. There were three of them – surely their ‘orders’ would not have stopped them from either: (a) preventing the attack by simply standing between attacker and victim; or (b) bothering to check whether or not the savagely beaten victim was Ok.

(Moreover, surely there is a case where you abandon orders for blatant simple common sense when it is clear that the safety of a member of the public is in serious jeopardy)

No – their actions reflected blatant negligence for which they had no excuse.

 
• Metro Transit.

Bottom line: Metro Transit are responsible for public safety at any station or terminal under their operation, and cannot be absolved of responsibility when incidents like this occur regardless of any contributory negligence on the part of either Olympic Security or the guards themselves.

The buck stops with them – period. They failed miserably.

 
• Olympic Security:

Finally, Olympic Security themselves must share the blame, and it is pleasing to see that their contract is under review following this incident.

They can argue all they like about how their staff did as required under the contractual agreement with Metro Transit. But this is a weak argument. As a private security firm, they share in a duty of care, and should not accept any contract under which members of their staff are prohibited from doing what is necessary to protect the public. And given their expertise, it is their responsibility to ensure that these types of contracts allow for proper procedures to handle any security incidents that might occur.

They are also responsible for training their staff how to handle confrontations – and this does not include standing, watching and doing nothing.

Rather than miserably trying to justify their actions, Olympic Security should just come clean and publicly acknowledge a clear and simple fact – they, too, failed in their duty of care.

They should also be stripped of their contract. They are not paid to have their staff stand and watch whilst fifteen year old girls are beaten and robbed. If that’s what’s going to happen, then their services are not of a standard which is appropriate to meet the ongoing requirements of the travelling public.

.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Piracy off the coast of Somalia represents a very serious problem.

But putting armed security guards on board vessels which travel through the area is not the best solution.

Such an action would place the safety of crew members, as well as the guards themselves, in further jeopardy in my view.

 
Two important points
First, I feel that it is important to clarify two critical points:

 
• Crew safety is the most important consideration.

Granted, the increases in shipping costs which results from piracy is a serious concern, as is the unfair burden which it imposes upon ship owners.

Granted also, the impact of piracy in terms of inhibiting the delivery of food aid represents a more serious problem still.

But you can’t put a price tag on human life. And for this reason, the safety of crew members must surely be the overriding concern in terms of dealing with the piracy issue.

 
• Crew members themselves should never be armed.

Whilst there may be some merit in proposals to employ armed security personnel, crew members themselves should not be armed.

Arms should only be provided to those who are properly trained to use them, and under no circumstances should arms on board shipping vessels be placed in the hands of those who are not trained to use them properly.

 
A weak case for the proposal
The case for the use of armed security personnel does not appear to be particularly strong in my view.

It revolves around the notion that their presence (and that of their arms) would help to deter would-be pirates.

From the viewpoint of an individual ship owner, this may indeed be the case. Indeed, pirates may well be tempted to leave armed vessels alone, preferring the somewhat easier prey of unarmed vessels.

But from an overall perspective, the presence of armed security personnel on board shipping vessels is not likely to cause any significant decrease in piracy activities. Pirates who are sufficiently bold so as to continue to operate in spite of the proximity of large warships are hardly likely to be put off by a few armed guards. This is particularly the case as the shotguns carried by the guards are not likely to be any match for the extensive weaponry carried by many pirates.

For this reason, the case for having vessels manned with armed security personal would not appear to be particularly strong.

(Apparently, weapons carried on board ships is subject to the legal requirements of (a) both the ship’s flag carrier; and (b) the nations in which it intends to dock. In many cases, this means they are limited to shotguns (refer article)

Pirates, on the other hand, are typically armed with long range assault rifles capable of firing up to six hundred rounds per minute)

 
Very serious drawbacks
In contrast, there are at least two very serious drawbacks of the idea:

 
• Potential for escalated confrontation.

As it stands, the vast majority of crew members do not suffer any form of serious harm or injury in these ordeals. Nor do they typically suffer any form of inhumane treatment at the hands of the pirates.

That could change if there was an increase in cases of escalated confrontation resulting from the presence of armed security personnel.

 
• Possibility of accidents.

Misfired or stray bullets could easily result in serious accident, particularly where ships carry explosive material as cargo.

 
Over to you
In my view, the dangers presented by each of these risks far outweighs any deterrent benefit which the presence of armed security personnel on vessels which sail through pirate infested waters.

What do you think?

I have a question for you.

How and when do you think the world might have found out about a massive explosion which killed thirty-five workers at an illegal Chinese mine on July 14 last year?

Immediate reports from grief-stricken relatives? No. The mine owner acted very swiftly to purchase their silence.

Local officials? Not likely. They issued a false report after pretending to investigate.

Journalists? Nope – bribed also.

The mine owner? Naturally, no.

So how and when did the world find out? Two months later via some brave soul in an internet chat room, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

As a result of this brave soul, twenty-five local officials were fired, twenty-two of them now under criminal investigation.

The debacle described above highlights two important points:

• continuing problems in China with respect to accountability; and
• the constructive role which online media can play in terms of whistle-blowing.

 
China’s never-ending accountability problems
The fact that an incident like this was exposed only through an internet chat room shows just how diabolical the situation really is with respect to accountability and worker safety in Chinese coal mines.

Even at the official rate, according to the article, the average death toll rate for Chinese coal miners stands at nine per day – a staggering forty times more than America. The problem is most acute in small mines, many of which are illegal, operate in more dangerous areas and have little apparent incentive to invest in safety. Apparently account for three quarters of the deaths but only one-third of production.

And even then, these are only the official figures. They do not take into account the scores of deaths which go unreported because local officials and journalists are so easily paid off.

The situation is completely unacceptable and international governments and unions should continue to apply pressure on China to undertake some form of meaningful action to address this downright awful situation.

 
The whistle-blowing role of online media
But on the bright side, the episode also highlights the constructive role which online forms of media can play in terms of corporate accountability.

As access to online media expands, so too will the capacity of individuals to blow the whistle on cover ups. It is one thing to lock in the loyalty of local officials and media (using handsome financial incentives), but persuading every single person who has access to a blog or some other form of online media to do the same would be extremely difficult.

In the new world, online media provides a wonderful mechanism to support whistle-blowing, and in many cases it, is only a matter of time before someone exploits this capability to expose even the most intricately planned conspiracy.

Of course, online media can also be a platform to spread misinformation, perhaps with malicious intent.

And unfortunately, the sad reality is that some firms will continue to attempt cover-ups of various kinds in spite of the increase risk of being exposed due to online media. Cover ups are a reality today, and will continue to be a reality throughout the foreseeable future.

But even so, the benefits of online media in terms of a whistle-blowing mechanism cannot be underestimated, and I would think that these benefits would far outweigh any associated drawbacks.

Where other mechanisms of accountability fail, it is wonderful that the online media provides those who wish to blow the whistle with an effective medium to do so.

Especially with respect to a grave tragedy like this.  

 
Over to you
Do you think online media helps to promote better practices in terms of corporate governance? Why/Why not?

Should owners of pubs, bars and nightclubs who are unable to control the behavior of their patrons be provided with a free, taxpayer funded security service?

Most people would probably say no, yet this would appear to be exactly what happens whenever a taxpayer-funded police force is required to respond to incidents which occur on or around the premises of such establishments.

To be sure, security staff employed by the establishment are usually able to handle the majority of incidents, say a couple of blokes getting into a bit of push and shove, without too much difficulty.

Nevertheless, where matters escalate out of control, police are left to clean up the mess, necessitating the use of a taxpayer funded service and costing the taxpayer money.

This is of little concern to owners of the establishments concerned, as they do not have to pay a dime even if their security procedures are lax and/or police involvement is required on a frequent basis.

This should not be the case, according to Rolf Gerritsen, a researcher the Charles Darwin University in Australia. Mr. Gerritsen, who has proposed that nightclub owners be charged a fee whenever police assistance is required at their venues.

Under Mr. Gerrison’s plan, owners of nightclubs, pubs or bars, would be would be required to pay a set fee any time police have to be called as a result of disturbances which occur within a ‘buffer zone’ around the immediate vicinity of their establishments.

 
Pro’s and Con’s
Rather than express a definitive viewpoint with respect to such a proposal, I would like to throw open the floor and see what you, the readers, think.

For starters, here are a few of my ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the idea:

 
Pro’s:
(1) Financial incentive to improve security.

Charging a fee whenever police assistance becomes necessary provides an incentive for owners of drinking establishments to adopt a more diligent approach with respect to security measures. These could include, for example, use of metal detectors for purposes of locating concealed weapons, or denial of entry to patrons who had been involved in security incidents in the past.

These types of incentives could lead to safer environments for the majority of patrons who wish to enjoy a harmless social event in a sensible fashion.

 
(2) Fairness.

It would seem to be fair enough that owners of establishments, rather than taxpayers, should foot the bill for their use of the police force as a public resource.

The principle of ‘user pays,’ which operates in many other areas of public service, is generally considered to be fair, and it could be well argued that owners of drinking establishments, not taxpayers, should assume the financial responsibility for the public safety risks which are inherent within their business activities.

In addition, it would also seem fair that owners who are able to maintain a reasonably safe environment should be entitled to enjoy a cost advantage over competitors with less safe environments, as they would if owners were charged for use of police on a per visit basis.

 
Con’s
(1) Reluctance to call police.

Charging owners of drinking venues for police assistance may result in an undue level of reluctance on behalf of some venues to call the police, potentially placing the safety of patrons and staff in undue jeopardy in the event that a serious incident does occur.

The police force is better equipped than internal security staff to deal with incidents where patrons are placed under severe threat of serious injury.

 
(2) Patrons, not establishments or their staff, cause the trouble.

This is a pretty weak argument in my view, but some may feel that it is the conduct of patrons, rather than staff, that result in the need for police involvement, and that it is unfair that venue owners should be punished for the conduct of those who merely use their premises and consume the services which they provide.

Drinking venues, some would argue, should be held accountable for the actions of their staff – not for their customers.

 
Over to you
What do you think? Do you support the charging of fees where drinking venues require police assistance?