Dear Editor,

No employee should have to choose between earning a living and returning home alive.

The shooting of a female pump attendant during a robbery at a service station on Deanery Road in St Andrew has highlighted the danger faced by Jamaica’s retail workers. It has also renewed a question: Are service stations doing enough to protect the people standing beside the pumps?

Many stations have reduced cash exposure, with most purchases made by debit or credit cards. Yet cash limits alone cannot prevent violence. Criminals may not know how little money an attendant has, and an attack may occur before they discover that the expected reward is small.

The response must, therefore, be layered security, with several controls working together so that the failure of one does not leave workers exposed.

Each station should begin with a security assessment examining lighting, blind spots, camera coverage, staffing, crime patterns, and escape routes. Cameras should capture faces, vehicles, licence plates, pumps, entrances, and exits. At higher-risk locations, live monitoring or automatic number-plate recognition could be considered, while all stations should ensure that surveillance systems are maintained and capable of producing usable evidence.

Detection must be matched by a reliable response. Attendants should have access to discreet panic buttons or wearable duress alarms that are tested regularly. During late-night or early-morning hours, workers should not be left isolated. Two-person staffing, visible security personnel, and regular check-ins can reduce vulnerability, but guards must have a clear view of the forecourt and reliable communication equipment.

Stations should also reduce opportunities for robbery through pay-at-the-pump systems, pay-before-pumping, cashless-only periods, or protected cashier windows. Clear signage should explain whether payments are cashless, card-only, or must be made at the counter. Where appropriate, signs, such as “Attendants Do Not Have Access to Cash”, may reduce the perceived reward for targeting workers, but only if they accurately reflect the station’s procedures.

Employees also need clear instructions for suspicious behaviour. They should be allowed to maintain a safe distance, alert a supervisor, or delay service when occupants conceal their faces, behave aggressively, or refuse safety directions.

Robbery-response training is equally important. Workers should be taught not to resist armed offenders or pursue fleeing suspects. After an incident, they should receive medical attention, counselling, and a formal debrief without being blamed.

Gas station attendants are not security barriers. They are workers, parents, and breadwinners. If stations can invest in fuel, equipment and customer convenience, should protecting the employee standing beside the pump be treated as anything less than an essential operating cost?

Protecting attendants requires more than a cash limit, a guard, or a camera. It requires a coordinated system designed to deter attacks, detect danger early, and support employees when seconds matter.

Renée Watkis

renedicken@hotmail.com