Forcing The Training Issue

[Bill Warnock]

Bill W and SecTrainer,

I have been responding as I read this thread so bear with my multiple posts.

You have nailed the goal of any security consulting organization in my opinion-nice!

John

John, we thank you. You are as part of your scope of work teaching security officers. If they should see a light out and is to be on at all times and it is constantly replaced, that should ring a bell.
In the old army, the discrepancy was, "Floor dirty." Corrective Action: Cleaned Floor. Several repeat inspections, same thing over and over again.
What is now emphasized is: "What we will do to preclude this discrepancy from occurring again."
Now back to the light out. John, if it keeps going out, the question must be asked why? Things just don't happen, there is a cause. Could be bad socket, bad switch, bad wiring, neutral not secured tightly to the binding post. If the whole circuit has problems even more problems.
Door found taped open repeatedly. Do something! That is management's job to correct what the field tells them.
Look for the indicators. Something to keep that in mind is a joke my Air Police supervisor told us some 45 years ago. "If she moans and her nails lightly scratch your back, those are indicators, you're doing something right. Folks there are always be indicators to indicate something is either right or wrong." The French in the analogy was modified in both instances.
In this business we must learn, "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Bill Warnock]

John to follow-up on my last missive, when you are told you have a medical condition and your turn WebMD or a like site for additional information are you perhaps bypassing the doctor to then treat yourself? Of course not. You are merely seeking to educate yourself so as to be a better informed patient. That is the analogy that I and some others use when we sent our guides to a prospective client so they can get started on either correcting existing deficiencies or to boost their confidence or reassurance they are on the right track. From those checklists, if properly formated, they will learn of other sources they might not have thought of.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[john_harrington]

John to follow-up on my last missive, when you are told you have a medical condition and your turn WebMD or a like site for additional information are you perhaps bypassing the doctor to then treat yourself? Of course not. You are merely seeking to educate yourself so as to be a better informed patient. That is the analogy that I and some others use when we sent our guides to a prospective client so they can get started on either correcting existing deficiencies or to boost their confidence or reassurance they are on the right track. From those checklists, if properly formated, they will learn of other sources they might not have thought of.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Bill,

We also send our VA clients an extensive worksheet 2 weeks or more before starting an assessment. Like you, we have found it to be a great tool as well as a way to be competitive.

Regards

[junkyarddog]

THE CASE AGAINST HIGHER STANDARDS: Having said that, we now must turn around and acknowledge that both security companies and their clients have used the "economic case" for many years as a sufficient argument to keep training mandates low. In reply, those of us who argue for higher standards have generally attacked the "economic case" directly - for instance, by arguing that better selection and training results in better service and lower liability, so that insufficient training investment represents a form of "false economics".

Our case is demonstrably true, yet it remains the fact that this argument has rarely been very successful, even if true. Direct costs are much easier for companies to see and think about than future benefits...or even future liabilities, much less the potential differences in benefits and liabilities that will result from the lower standards versus higher standards.

Only a comprehensive study done by professional analysts (aka MBA's) could really determine whether or not higher training standards would be more profitable to the customer than lower training standards. And this by sector to sector, likely a case by case analysis.

We don't fight fires. For as hard as higher training standards for the purpose of occupational safety is pushed, security companies will lobby back even harder. They will produce "documented proof from experts" who analyze statistics, demonstrating that current levels of training are entirely sufficient in meeting standard occupational safety.

as far as "detect, observe, report" security goes....

Lets assume it works and now "security companies" must train their S/O's a minimum of 120 hours. The cost gets passed onto the customer. Once the new standards are formed, someone will simply start a service that does the same exact thing- or at least to the same exact affect- that security companies do. But they will not call themselves "security". Not being "security" and not having to pay for the extensive training, they will low-ball their "security" competitors and dominate the industry.

Let's dispense with the question of "observe and report" officers first: Even officers who might initially be assigned to "observe-and-report" positions should be trained to a standard that allows the security company or security department manager to post them to more "response-oriented" positions as manpower needs change and as the security environment changes. This is just good personnel planning - not to have certain people "locked into" certain assignments.

If 90% of your business is contracting out "observe and report" S/O's, why on earth would you dispense with observe and report S/O's? You might as well just drop 90% of your customers.

My view is that the best way to have more training mandated, is to couple higher screening, training and salary mandates with financial off-sets for security companies. Likely in the form of government grants. On the flip side, the bonus for the government would be the right to use security officers as needed in emergencies to fill marginal roles, freeing more highly skilled and trained government personnel for more critical duties and buttressing manpower overall. This idea at least gives security companies incentive to see the legislation gets pushed through.

[Bern Wheaton]

The sad truth is there will never been a good training for security ever or any company will follow through with .the monitory training of eight hours and off you go to your post which the training here depends on the contract some could be up to four hours and some are two weeks. But then it depends on who trains you? And if they are any good at training!

I had a Friend once who tried to make all the Security company's into a union and that is how it would have to work they all would have to agree ,be for it would become a union, he was fired in a week and they found a good reason to fire him!

If it is a high tech company they will pay for you to get that training to work on there site .But security company's at least the ones I see ,just want body's to cover there post and then you got the high turn overs of security guards.

Someone new every day,never the same face,clients and employees alike frown on this!

It would be nice to have all security company's have to get a monitory rule to train all security equal on everything instead of some silly security bible telling them the do's and dont's. and when you can have vacation! how many sick day you can't have!

These security manuals do not explain anything in the real world of security.
And what your stepping into! training is the most important part of any security officer life and if you wish to stick with it as a life time career.

If you are not Trained right you are look down on ,and the sad truth is this where we get the rap as security guards ,wanna be and rent a pigs, With out proper training and recognition for what we do and who we are it will never change

[ValleyOne]

OSHA will never rid the market of under bidding. In an industry where a LOT of owners/managers would step over their own mother (if they had one) to slit the throat of a competitor, how can you stop this?

These types will always weasel their way into stealing accounts from competitor's who; "Charge way to much, I can do the SAME THING for a whole lot less. I'll could save you so much money, it's really just a waste to pay for the company you have, or are considering. Because I charge a fair and honest price."

I know of a company that is still charging people the same as he did when he started out nearly 15 years ago, and even back then he was low balling everyone. So now the market is conditioned to paying nearly $90 per month for three hits a night!!!

I like the idea of bringing OSHA into the fray though.

[Maelstrom]

These types will always weasel their way into stealing accounts from competitor's who; "Charge way to much, I can do the SAME THING for a whole lot less. I'll could save you so much money, it's really just a waste to pay for the company you have, or are considering. Because I charge a fair and honest price."

IMHO You pay peanuts... you get monkeys!

We obviously need to educate our clients as to what exactly quality/reliable service really is, the benefits of a contracting company who treats it's employee's well (in regards to pay, equipment, conditions & training) & the inherent risks going with fly-by-nighters

As to the training comment someone made, our company uses the 'buddy system' pairing up employees to teach them the ropes, with the frequency of the 'buddy shifts' determined by the degree of difficulty each site presents

[Ron Jessee]

oh good lord I agree. Some of the NCOs I've had to deal with have been, how shall I put it- a bit 'off'. Gold chains, trousers pulled down mid thigh, and just about any kind of uniform blunder you can think of point to a single thing. With these people, it's just another $6.50 per hour paycheck, and they will do anything possible to make things easy on themselves.

That's a big reason why DPS has been called in to enforce TBPS codes. And why the public and law enfocement community see us mainly as "Bad News Bears" type characters. Decent pay, and for heaven's sake actual training (not just certification tests) might actually seperate the fry cooks from the actual officers.

And I can't even find a decent source of information on Texas Private security regs.