but in this job he would, the previous holder of the position has said that he sleeps for a solid 5 hours every night. That suggests he'll have some menial checks to do and then it's pretty much carte blanche for whatever he wants to do until people come in in the morningIts more the staying up and alert for 15 hours through the night that would be disruptive. I certainly didn't have time to play on a PSP which I don't have in my last nightshift job
15½ hour shifts
- Thread starter movingtables
- Start date
We have different opinions of what is acceptable at work then.
That very much depends what the job is and what you have to do.
If all he's tasked with doing is being present and carrying out checks every x hours, then what does it matter what he does in the intervening time?
Without seeing the actual job description I couldn't comment.
What are they paying for specifically then? If the automated equipment does 95% of the job why have anyone at all
What are they paying for specifically then? If the automated equipment does 95% of the job why have anyone at all
If they didn't need him they wouldn't employ him.
I used to get a couple of hours in on the last time I covered nights.
Hmm. I've seen employers hire just to get the government subsidy then remove the position 6 months later.
What kind of place was it? I suppose covering parcels is a different story to just making a few rounds at night.
Without seeing the actual job description I couldn't comment.
What are they paying for specifically then? If the automated equipment does 95% of the job why have anyone at all
Well the ones I talked to. Are there if any thing goes wrong. Be it someone turning up for valid or non-valid reasons, phone calls, alarms ect.
Have to do the rounds ever x hours and check what ever they are told. Usually perimeter fence and key areas. Other than that do what they want. Hence low pay long hours. But most enjoy it as they don't count it as work. They either like a chilled out life or are doing it part time or temporary.
Why does that require forking out for SIA Level 4 then? Sounds like common sense to me. Next thing I know you'll need a paid certificate for being a receptionist
Why does that require forking out for SIA Level 4 then? Sounds like common sense to me. Next thing I know you'll need a paid certificate for being a receptionist
No idea what one entails. But a way of monitoring security guards and trying to stop cowboys?
Possibly includes first aid and other relevant training?
Nope, no first aid. It literally is just the common sense stuff, a day's worth at most.
what's SIA level 4? he'd need a static (Security Guard) licence as you do if you're given any level of access control.
Last edited:
http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home
Level 4 is the standard for a basic security guard job anywhere around here.
I've never seen mention of level 4 and it's not mentioned on the SIA's website, that's why I was asking.
Its the security industry equivalent of the "Food Hygiene Certificate" which is why I called it common sense. Still see ads in the paper for it.
oh I thought that might be what you meant, but was confused that you were talking about forking out for it, the course costs nothing but the licence costs £245 (I've just renewed my door supervisor licence).
And there's your lesson kids. Study or you'll end up in dead end jobs like this without few options
Oh and go on and roll-eyes at me if you want, you know its true
