SZV owed Naf. 2.3M which was not paid from 2002 -2014
PHILIPSBURG:--- Management of Checkmate Security in a press release said that want to set the record straight regarding the increase they got from the St. Maarten Harbor Group of Companies (SMHGC) for outsode security. The company's management said that a local newspaper published an article on the increase, but did not contact the company for a reaction. They further stated that while Checkmate have been in existence for a number of years on St. Maarten the new owners are faced with a Naf.2.3M debt they inherited when they purchased the company in 2014. The former owner of Checkmate Security did not pay his SZV premiums from 2002 to 2014.
"We would like to offer a rebuttal with regards to the article posted February 24, 2015 in the Daily Herald that attempted to frivolously fact find information; but only seemed to provide erroneous disinformation and sensationalism with respect to Checkmate Security and the Harbor's agreement for 2015. For the record No one has attempted to contact the Owners, Managing Director, or any Management of Checkmate Security Services pertaining to security services in the port of St. Maarten."
Since 9-11 the need to prevent terrorism, enhance safety and security, as well as reduce the vulnerability of critical areas within St. Maartens' porting infrastructure was made the highest priority, it has become paramount within the international tourism industry.
An industry that is 85% of the labor force in St. Maarten and with more than one million tourists arriving annually, tourism is by far the most important sector of the economy.
That being said logic dictates that the focus and responsibilities of the Harbor are to improve and enhance its security measures as well as its facilities becoming compliant with International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code), which is a wide-ranging compulsory security regime for international ports.
These measures come with an expense, i.e. the compensation of employees, operating costs, taxes, cost of living adjustments and minimum wage increases. For the record the cost of living has increased by 4.7% during the period of August 2011 to August 2012 and 5.4% over 2012 and since 2010, minimum wage has gradually increased approximately 14% up until December 2012. As per January 2014, the minimum wage was indexed by 2.8 percent. It should be understood that these are statutory based adjustments for which Checkmate Security Services nor the St. Maarten Harbor have control over, and that based on these increases Checkmate Security has no alternative but to adjust its rates to reflect these changes; something that was NOT done by the previous management and owners of Checkmate Security services, which basically absorbed these increases with no modifications.
But lets look at the numbers. The "average" security personal/unit (not including supervisory or administrative staff) makes USD $5 per hour ($4.76 is minimum wage), because of the shift scheduling and number of personal on site 24hrs they make an additional $2.50 in overtime (by law) which brings them to $7.50 per hour. Add in SZV,ABZ,AWB and all applicable taxes for another $1.10 and we are at a cost of $8.60 per unit per hour. A difference of $1.90 versus the $10.50 mentioned in the article; and we still haven't calculated operating costs on a monthly basis i.e. trainings, radios (Zenitel), uniforms & equipment, daily consumables. All of this at roughly 22000 to 25000 man hours overall monthly with the possibility of $42k to $47.5k in revenue.
We include all this information to be above board, to prove a point, and to ask a few questions.
Why is it that foreign businesses can establish themselves in St. Maarten with less inspection and inquiry? Why is it that when a local man/owner tries to run a local business correctly and successfully he is dragged through the proverbial mud? And who in their right mind tries to run a business at a loss or to fail? The article suggests that $7.07 an hour is a feasible number, based on what, an old agreement and bad business decision that was signed below practicable operating margins by the previous owners? Checkmate Security has been providing security to the harbor from 2002 -2015, 13 years with out an increase. We are here to use good business sense and a 5% increase is to assist in correcting some of these previous bad business decisions! Is that not the objective of good business?
To date the new management of Checkmate Security has had to pay nafl. 2.3 million in back taxes to SZV, all in an effort to succeed and be viable as a local business.
So should Checkmate Security continue to throw good money after bad?
Currently Checkmate Security Services employs 350 plus personal 190 of which are locals, 89 of which were hired by the new management within the last year.
Based on our calculations regarding the aforementioned economic conditions and adhering to the basic civil rights of our workers we are striving to be sustainable within the letter of the law and provide quality security services at standard and conventional rates.
Former Owner of Checkmate Reacts to Statements made by Current Management.
Former owner of Checkmate Security Michael Kuiperi reacted to the press statement by stating that he wishes to state first and foremost that he has zero contact with Checkmate therefore he cannot comment on
the rate increase that the General Manager is mentioned in his press statement.
"What I can state is that throughout the years that Checkmate has been providing security services to the harbor we had numerous price increases. In 2010 we signed a five years contract that will end December 31, 2015 and once more a price increase was successfully negotiated, so the statement of the General Manager that Checkmate never increased their price to the Harbor Holding is incorrect. If I was the General Manager I will peruse the files in the office before making unfounded statements. He will also see how difficult the Harbor Holding was doing for a ten cents increase in those days. Perhaps the Harbor Holding has a new policy in investing in external security by accepting the additional price increase. I wish the new management and shareholders the best and hope that they are able to move forward another 23 years of business."