Rate this!
Anonymous
Apart from sporadic actions by angry or otherwise disgruntled employees, contractors, visitors etc, there is a real risk that protests may occur on the streets of our capital City in particular, as well as more pernicious actions such as electronic or cyber terrorism. I think it is reasonable to say that targets may tend to be Government, UK or US institutions in this country. This also means anyone connected to a likely target by geography, business linkage or otherwise.
Traditionally there have been anti-capitalist protests on our streets on 1 May each year and there is a logical concern that events in the Middle East this year will provide some spurious legitimacy to anarchist groups to now embrace other usually less hostile NGO?s to form a different kind of coalition under a single anti UK / US banner on or before 1 May.
That may yet create a very worrying spectre and I believe as a result that it would make considerable sense for any organisation that takes Crisis Management seriously, to now review their individual states of resilience. This includes moving quickly at executive level to understand and react to any likely crisis, protection of supply routes, operations, staff welfare and much more.
This does not mean leaving it just to the Security Manger. There are issues of Reputation and Image at stake here and very few Security Mangers have a strategic as opposed to operational view of this, or a direct route to the board. This very much links to Business Continuity Management and if you have not set this up yet you are likely to (a) have a lot of uncovered risk exposures and (b) attract increased penalties if operations fail ? assuming that is you can ever recover.
My own belief is that crisis prevention is considerably more effective than disaster recovery, but many organisations are encouraged by some consultants to spend a disproportionate amount of time and money on recovery options, without first looking at reducing risks, as well as preparing for the unforeseen.
There is a potential reduction in insurance premiums if you can demonstrate, should a catastrophe appear, that being able to work at the speed of a crisis rather than the speed of the organisation, the likelihood of a subsequent claim on your policy is much reduced. However, many insurers have yet to properly recognise this.
It?s also worth bearing in mind that most insurers accept that for every £ or $ of insured costs, there is anything between 8 and 36 times this amount in uninsured costs (e.g. loss of skills, reputation, training costs and so on).
There are many useful links that can help you start to assess not only the threats and risks that are now emerging, but also your regulatory obligations / guidelines to provide adequate plans to protect your operations and staff in particular.
Having spent many years running an independent company that helps organisations to rapidly assess their vulnerabilities and do something about them (normally in the form of coaching and testing Crisis Management skills), the answers need not be cost prohibitive. One thing is however certain: if you think the cost of planning and preparing may be high, it could be nowhere near as great as the cost of doing nothing?..
Peter Power is MD of Visor Consultants Limited, www.visorconsultants.com. He was the lead speaker at 2002 Global Disaster Mgt. conference in North America.
Rate this!
Anonymous
Employment law firm Thompsons has warned that unauthorised walk-outs - in protest at US-led military attacks in Iraq - could put workers in breach of their job contracts as they would not be involved in a ?trade dispute? or have backing from a ballot.
UNIFI General Secretary, Ed Sweeney, said he could understand why many members would want to protest, but advised them not to act rashly. He said: ?UNIFI recognises that many of its members will wish for reasons of conscience to show opposition to military action taken without UN authority, in lawful and peaceful ways. However, the union cannot condone unlawful action, including the breaching of contracts of employment.?
Rate this!
Anonymous
Whilst Mr Power makes many useful points regarding the mechanics of a response to a perceived threat, his comment "My own belief is that crisis prevention is considerably more effective than disaster recovery, " bears most scrutiny and, I suggest, support and action.
Many people feel strongly on either side of this debate with, one suggests, more people feeling that this whole situation is less than legal or moral BUT the majority of those protesting have no interest in violent reaction to indigenous companies. There is no link per se between the so called anti capitalist protestors and the Coalition to Stop War in the Gulf, save that the protest world is a rather incestuous world, like most groupings and some, as evidence by Michael Moore during the Oscars, suggest that the "war" has a basis in more capitalist concerns.
Surely the sign of a company attempting to practice good corporate social responsibility (CSR) would not be to batten down the hatches but to take good precautions for continuity of their business whilst at the same time encouraging, where possible, sensible debate amongst staff about the issues involved - whilst gently reminding staff of their legal obligations to work?
We might all then become more informed and feel that our businesses reflected that better information. As an aside, almost all the research published on CSR suggests that those companies which practice CSR well have a more contented staff with less staff turnover: perhaps it can apply here as well...
Rate this!
Anonymous
The private-sector union Amicus has called on the Government to punish employers who fail to draw up plans for possible terrorist attacks. In a report in The Guardian, Amicus claims that too many employers are "ignoring what is the biggest health and safety issue of the 21st century".
0 (0)
