Private security personnel are a cornerstone of our security framework. Politicians, local authorities and public administrations must finally live up to this responsibility when it comes to protecting these workers.

The life-threatening attack on a Deutsche Bahn security officer is more than just another shocking incident of violence. It brings home just how much our society now relies on people whose job it is to ensure safety – and how little their own protection is still taken for granted.

Following an escalated ticket inspection, the security officer fell from a moving regional train and was seriously injured. The Federal Association of the Security Industry (BDSW) is taking this case as an opportunity to renew a long-standing demand: employees of private security firms must be afforded appropriate special protection under criminal law wherever they carry out security duties in the public interest.

This demand deserves support.

After all, private security personnel are no longer on the fringes of Germany’s security framework. They are an integral part of it. They protect railway stations and transport facilities, critical infrastructure, public institutions, businesses and events. They control access, maintain order, defuse conflicts and, in many places, are the first to be confronted with aggressive or violent behaviour.

BDSW President Werner Landstorfer sums up this importance: “They protect railway stations, critical infrastructure, public facilities and events, thereby making a significant contribution to public safety.”

It is precisely this that gives rise to a social responsibility.

Security is a shared responsibility

A modern society cannot guarantee security through the police, fire service and emergency services alone. The security framework has long consisted of a collaboration between state, local authority and private-sector actors. Private security companies undertake tasks without which many areas of public and economic life would struggle to function in their usual form.

This is particularly true in places where large crowds gather daily, where sensitive infrastructure must be protected, or where conflicts can arise at a moment’s notice. This includes railway stations and trains, as well as hospitals, local authority facilities, airports, energy plants, industrial companies, shopping centres, stadiums and major events.

Private security personnel therefore do more than simply provide a service to their clients. Their work contributes to the functioning of the economy and society.

Anyone who makes use of this service must therefore also take responsibility for those who provide it.

Respect and safety in the workplace must be no less important for employees in the private security sector than for staff of the so-called emergency services. The tasks differ, as do powers and legal status. However, the violence that people encounter whilst at work does not distinguish between employers or uniforms.

Anyone who is attacked, beaten or otherwise seriously injured whilst ensuring safety and order does not experience any less violence simply because they are employed by a private company.

A gap in protection that is becoming increasingly difficult to justify

The disparity in legal treatment is therefore particularly problematic. The legislature has created special criminal law protection provisions for various emergency services and has repeatedly made the extension of these provisions the subject of political debate in recent years.

Employees in the private security sector have so far been excluded from comparable special protection – even though they encounter similar conflict situations and considerable risks in numerous fields of operation.

Landstorfer poses the crucial question: “Anyone acting on behalf of the safety of others also deserves the protection of the rule of law. It is incomprehensible why private security personnel, despite their responsible work and the increasing violence directed against them, continue to be excluded from this special protection.”

This is not about equating different professional groups legally and functionally. Police officers possess sovereign powers that private security personnel do not have. These differences are fundamental.

However, they must not lead to the danger faced by private security personnel being perceived by society as less significant.

When employees are regularly deployed in situations where conflicts arise, rules must be enforced, people must be protected and public spaces must be secured, a political response to the associated risks is required.

Respect does not begin with the Criminal Code

The extension of criminal law protection called for by the BDSW is therefore an important building block. However, it will not solve the problem on its own.

The protection of security personnel begins much earlier. Politicians, local authorities, public administrations and clients must ask themselves under what conditions security services are contracted out and provided. Anyone who commissions security services bears joint responsibility for ensuring that employees can carry out their duties under the safest possible conditions.

This includes a realistic risk assessment, adequate staffing levels, suitable technical equipment, professional training and further education, de-escalation training, effective communication and alert systems, as well as clear protocols for situations in which support from the police or other emergency services is required.

Public contracting authorities, in particular, should set an example in this regard. Security must not be viewed primarily as a cost item in tendering processes. Those who award contracts solely under maximum price pressure should not be surprised if, in the end, resources are lacking precisely where staff need protection, training and support.

Effective security work requires the right framework conditions.

Local authorities and administrations must take responsibility

Cities, local authorities and administrations also have a role to play. Members of the public are increasingly encountering private security personnel in public or publicly accessible spaces. They work at transport hubs, in local authority facilities, at events and in many other places where security is a direct concern.

This is why locally tailored security strategies are needed, in which private security services are not merely regarded as external contractors, but as partners within a networked security structure.

Clear lines of responsibility, shared situational awareness, defined escalation procedures and effective cooperation with the police, emergency services, transport operators and local authorities can play a crucial role in identifying dangerous situations at an earlier stage and better protecting staff.

Above all, however, a clear message is needed: attacks on people who are working to ensure the safety of others will not be accepted as an occupational hazard.

Recognition must be demonstrated through concrete action

The public debate on violence against emergency services personnel has, quite rightly, gained in importance in recent years. Police officers, firefighters and paramedics deserve respect, support and the best possible protection.

However, this principle must not stop at the boundary between public and private employment.

Respect is not divisible.

If private security personnel make a significant contribution to public safety, their role must also be recognised politically in a commensurate manner. This includes adequate legal protection, safe working conditions, high quality standards and the consistent prosecution of violence against staff.

The BDSW calls for “the special protection under criminal law to be extended to employees in the private security sector and for the existing loophole in the Criminal Code to be closed”. In the wake of repeated serious acts of violence against security personnel, this demand should not merely be discussed once again. It should prompt serious political scrutiny and concrete measures.

This is not just a matter for the Bundestag and the Federal Government. The federal states, local authorities, public administrations, transport companies and public contracting authorities can already do a great deal today to better integrate security personnel into security strategies and make their working conditions safer.

Referring to the recent attack, Landstorfer says: “Violence against security personnel [is] no longer a marginal phenomenon.” This statement should have consequences.

A society that expects people to take responsibility for the safety of others bears a responsibility of its own for their safety.

Private security personnel protect our infrastructure, our businesses, our events and public spaces. In doing so, they contribute to the stability of the economy and society.

Those who ensure safety therefore deserve more than just our respect.

They must be able to rely on politicians, the state, local authorities and clients to take their safety seriously too.

[ML]