SSS sounds a bit like a nationalist arm of the right wing party, but its more to do with health and safety of work and the public. The target is to identify a threat to the culture of the organisation and defuse it.

A company is the normal entity of business involving production of goods and services as well as hiring and employing workers to carry out its operation. This tends to allow discrimination in favour of the culture of work.

As well as employees who exercise their freedom to speak out about inequality and fairness, Targeted Employees are also those who pose a personal or political threat to the culture of the company.

The culture of the company is independent of the business entity although the company may favour its culture's economic influence on employees. For example, if the majority of workers are men and they have found it easier to work among men, then the culture of work may pose a threat to women. And the same is true for women if they were making up the culture of work. But in reality it may refer more to ethnicity than gender, and ability or disability.

I have had four jobs in two years as something I'm not proud of according to the usual term of stable work history. But this has witnessed a changing nature of flexibility of employment in some industries. Perhaps I should say it's a changing nature of managements' personal discretion.

So it follows that standards are no longer inherent of code of ethics covering both workers and managers alike, but now it seems to yield to what is considered excepted circumstances. And the manager's or supervisor's discretion becomes more or less a personal struggle against targeted employees.

It is where the supervisor's discretion takes over standards and code of ethics when it comes to own personal involvement. Such expectations as conflict of interests and professional ethics give way to personal struggles. It is usually manifested when the unsuspecting employee becomes a victim to a personal or culture vendetta.

This scandal is reaffirmed by the unwillingness of the company to deal with such cases and instead move to rapidly shut it down before it escalates to a liable case. And that results with the usual dismissal of the employee who has now left with an unstable work record.

I would refer to this aspect as the unspoken law of employment when the management is prepared to change the rule under exceptional circumstances. It implies a personal grievance case against the company that is discreetly shut down at a loss to the employee.

Of the three jobs I have lost, none was due to any on my account. I perform duties to the detail, but performance is not so important among other things. It is acceptance by the culture of that department the utmost required character.

That means, you could be a good worker, but if you don't become like a 'yes man' among colleagues, you could lose your job in no time. Before you know it, all these blames and responsibilities are pointed at you from all directions, or you could be framed for anything including theft, damage to property or other.

Recently, this has been achieved by bullying the targeted employee that he/she can no longer cope and leave the company.

I know there are some implicit reasons why one becomes a target not only by the supervisors but also by workmates.

I can think of the level of communication and abilities that somehow pose a threat to the hierarchy resulting with isolation of targeted employees. Cultural members usually stick together while shunning for whatever reasons the odd one out.

This is typical to the Security Industry. Companies undercut each other when competing for contracts by offering low rates. The rewarding company has to pay its employees low wages in order to sustain contract agreements. And that means employing low qualified workers.

So, what do you expect of an industry that attracts low paid and un-qualified workers? Scandals!

Well, it doesn't help when you have promotions of the industry associated with images to portray macho types to suggest a physical nature more than intelligence and professional.

During my time in the industry, I have never came across an incident requiring my physique and stamina to de-escalate a situation. It is mainly communication. But it requires a cool thinking mind more than a muscular approach or experience.

Having said that, young people among some are deterred by physical appearance. So by placing a bouncer like in front of the door may work. But really, that is using violent images like promoting violence. The violent intention is portrayed according to the cops is violence and one could be charged for violent behaviour.

So if you place a macho man in front of the public, you might witness a submissive or reactive crowd. But if you place a confident communicator in front, you might witness a decent cooperative crowd.

Some companies are now dealing directly with prisoners among those sentenced to home detention and community work. The public perception of these folks is the same as prisoners where prisoners are seen as violent criminals.

Some companies have employed women to do these parole duties the same as support workers in mental health institutions. And there lies the question of do we allow macho bouncer to deal with criminals and others in customer services duties?

And that is where SSS comes in not as spy organisation of the company, but a Special Security Squad not only to deter but to ensure the health and safety of workers and the public is secured.

My suggestion is to form a branch of specialist security to deal with this need directly and not mental health support workers or customer services. Yes we know, neither companies nor mental health can afford this much needed specialised service.

I'm sure this will elevate SSS profile a public service.