Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Migrating from "Observe and Report" to action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Agreed - he has the extensive experience behind his career in a variety of roles which together with his formal training is why he would be marketable as service provider who can sell his corporate services to a growing market. From his knowledge and posts, you know this is one bloke who had been there and done it and has not hidden behind a desk job in his previous roles.

    BC, your cheque cleared last night .......... ok just kidding but being honest in my previous statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    I'd like to give you a concrete example of a forum member who would probably be in a position to start his own company, although I do not know anything about his business training or his financial position, of course.

    Do a search on Black Caesar's posts, and read them. Here is someone who has a range of experience in various subdomains of the security field and in the "gray" area of private/public policing as well as LE itself. His posts reflect maturity and judgment, and he has obviously taken the trouble to understand the law in his state pertaining to the field very well. He has had leadership responsibilities.

    One other very interesting characteristic of BC that you might not notice at first is that he is also obviously well-versed in doing Internet research, a skill that is becoming increasingly vital to anyone who needs answers to questions.

    An individual like BC doesn't have to have all the pieces in his own hand when he starts thinking about starting his own business, because he is capable of doing two things:

    1. Putting together a resume that would attract the attention of small business lenders, investors and potential partners. So, if he does not happen to have the capital to start a business in his own bank account, he can probably get it.

    2. Easily filling in any gaps in his business knowledge that would be crucial to that side of running a security company. So, if he needs to gain such knowledge, the learning curve should be very manageable.

    This is what I mean by paying your dues. Good buildings start with good designs and solid foundations, and so do successful businesses.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-23-2008, 01:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedi View Post
    This is one of the gravest concerns I have. After all, private companies run our power, gas, water, sewer, waste disposal, telecommunications, and health care. These businesses are not protected by Police... they are protected by private security companies. Some of these companies take it very seriously and provide extensive training and tools for their officers... but that is actually a rarity. Looking specifically at health care, as that is where my experience is, I have found that the security companies providing officers are mostly warm body shops. There is no understanding of the rising threat to the CI and consequently there is no training provided to the officers to bring them up to a higher level. Add to this the administrations' "it will never really happen" mindset, and our hospitals are a gaping whole in our nations emergency response system.

    I discussed this in a recent conversation with a CT expert from the FBI. The conclusion we came to was that unless there is a bad incident, the change will not be coming from the .gov side of things. So we are left, again, to our own devices, so to speak, in fixing this. That isn't a good thing either. Between SIA, ASIS, IAHSS, and what ever other security organizations are out there, I doubt that there will be an active willingness to come together to start setting broad standards. Even if they do, money will always be the primary concern, since the membership is made up, largely, of the executives from security companies who are looking at keeping their company alive in the competitive market.
    Of course, there are problems when the government steps in, too. In the area of food supply security, the Dept of Agriculture implemented such a bizarre, beauraucratic program for food producers to "identify" the food that they produce (so it can be traced back to the source) that no one can even understand it.

    The two main problems underlying all of this are that:

    1. Security is regarded by business as a cost center, not a revenue center.

    2. It is very difficult to quantify the "value" of security by traditional metrics that business executives learn to use in MBA programs. Other cost centers (for instance, Human Resources) can more easily do so, although they have problems with this also.

    A third problem, which is not insignificant, is the public image of the security officer as Old Gus, the security guard snoozing at the Mayberry Bank, whose rusty revolver fell apart whenever he pulled it out, or the image of security as a refuge for losers and wannabes who couldn't make it in any other job, or the image of security as a do-nothing part-time job for Gramps when he retires from the glue factory.

    In fact, the security industry has only itself to blame for all of these images because of the grain of truth that exists in all of them, and because the security vendors have literally TRAINED business executives to believe that price is the only important consideration when selecting a vendor.

    Instead, they should have been educating clients regarding the vast difference between poor security services and professional services, and running their businesses as if there really were a difference. By this, I mean that when a client sees you rush a new officer into service in two days to fill a post, wearing a uniform three sizes too big and obviously not having a clue what the job is about...when a client sees that your supervisors are not knowledgeable about the principles of supervision and they do not exercise proper oversight...when they see that your officers are not properly equipped, or equipped with cheap gear...when they see your patrol vehicles aren't clean and properly maintained...well...all of those things go to reinforce the negative images and stereotypes.

    In short, if you run a cheesy, poorly-capitalized, "warm-body" operation that's always teetering on the brink of failure and has cash flow problems, has no real management expertise, has no standards for hiring and training officers, provides no employee support or benefits, can barely staff its accounts because of 60% annual turnover, etc., the client is GOING TO KNOW THAT'S THE KIND OF OPERATION YOU RUN WITHIN A MONTH OF SIGNING THE CONTRACT, and from that first experience on they figure "Hey - I guess that's what security is all about, so why should I pay for anything else?" WE HAVE TRAINED THEM TO THINK THIS WAY, WHETHER WE INTENDED TO DO SO OR NOT because the number of security companies that fit the above description EXACTLY is unfortunately greater than the number that do not. You go looking for a security company today, and the chances are excellent you're going to run across more than one operation like I just described. It's pathetic.

    You know as well as I do that we've got people on this very forum who aren't sure how they're going to pay next month's rent or their credit card bills, who have no business training or savvy whatsoever, who have no financial resources whatsoever, but one day they get sick of their boss and think "Screw him! I'll just start my own security company! How hard could it be?". They scrape up the money for a magnetic sign to slap on their rust-bucket (if it will stick), buy an old light bar off eBay, and off they go..."in search of clients", with less planning than a 6-year-old would put into a lemonade stand.

    Now don't get me wrong...I admire dreams and aspirations, and I believe everyone should have a chance to pursue a dream IF it's got some practical reality behind it whatsoever, but you gotta distinguish between a "dream" and a "pipe dream" - an expression that came out of the practice of smoking dope in water pipes. If you're just smoking dope, enjoy the pipe dream while it lasts but then get yourself a job. There's only a few ways to start a business, and about a million ways not to.

    My advice to all you guys who want to start your own businesses is this: First, pay your dues, by which I mean three things:

    1. Gain significant experience (I think at least 5 to 10 years) working for and moving your way up to at least mid-management level in a solid, well-run operation, whether that's a security company or a proprietary security department. As a substitute for this, military or other government security force experience is a much BETTER substitute than police experience as a rule.

    2. Get business training and/or education. This does NOT have to be a college degree or an MBA. The American Management Association has a number of well-regarded self-study certifications that will teach you how to think about business. These are not free, but the Small Business Association can also point you to many FREE courses for business owners or those who want to be business owners. Take every course you can take. Check out this resource (SmallBizU - Kutztown campus of the University of Pennsylvania) for free courses (and there are MANY others):

    http://www.kutztownsbdc.org/course_listing.asp

    I have checked out several of their courses before recommending them and they aren't just "fluff". Look at "Entrepreneurial Strategies" for example - lots to think about in that course.

    There is also an entire universe of excellent business publications (books, journals, newsletter, e-zines, forums, etc.) you should start to familiarize yourself with. Find out who is writing well-regarded books, like Tom Peters and others, and start to read what they say about the practice of business management. Cost? Most library cards are free so get one and use it!

    Above all, get a handle on the basic concepts of marketing (several of the "Guerilla Marketing" books by Jay Conrad Levinson are excellent, by the way), delivering customer satisfaction, contract management, cash flow management and the myriad laws pertaining to employees.

    3. Cultivate sources of credit and financing, starting with yourself. Clean up your credit rating if need be and keep it clean. Stay with one bank for a LONG period of time, and take the trouble to get to know your banker. You might not realize it, but you can make an appointment with your banker at any time and discuss...perhaps YEARS before you make your move...your aspirations and hopes, and ask for their advice about how you should proceed. If you can, you might consider taking out a very small loan from the bank (which you do not need) and paying it back promptly. Gradually increase the amount you borrow, do not SPEND it, make the first few payments on time and then pay it off early (not immediately, but within a few months - the bank has to earn something!). In this way, it will only cost you a small amount of interest to build up a history of loan repayment in this way - a price well worth paying. Having a record of 5 or 10 such loans on the records of your bank will never be a bad thing to have.

    Other sources of credit and financing are investors and potential partners. You might meet such people in many ways, from church to special interest groups, clubs like Rotary, volunteer organizations, etc., so any kind of social networking you can do has the potential to bring you into contact with someone who would one day be interested in helping or investing or participating with you.

    Pursuing a dream in a methodical, smart, savvy way is a very different thing from chasing your dreams willy-nilly all over the countryside. Don't be impulsive! You don't just start a business because you're pissed off at your boss or because you wake up one Tuesday morning thinking what a wonderful thing it would be to be rich. You also do NOT start your own company because you "think you might have a client", or someone says "Hey, you ought to go into business for yourself!", which is easy for THEM to say.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-23-2008, 01:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedi
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Unfortunately, most of the CI in this country is privately owned, not government-owned, and I think there's a less than 1% chance the feds will step in. Don't ask me why, because I just don't know.
    This is one of the gravest concerns I have. After all, private companies run our power, gas, water, sewer, waste disposal, telecommunications, and health care. These businesses are not protected by Police... they are protected by private security companies. Some of these companies take it very seriously and provide extensive training and tools for their officers... but that is actually a rarity. Looking specifically at health care, as that is where my experience is, I have found that the security companies providing officers are mostly warm body shops. There is no understanding of the rising threat to the CI and consequently there is no training provided to the officers to bring them up to a higher level. Add to this the administrations' "it will never really happen" mindset, and our hospitals are a gaping whole in our nations emergency response system.

    I discussed this in a recent conversation with a CT expert from the FBI. The conclusion we came to was that unless there is a bad incident, the change will not be coming from the .gov side of things. So we are left, again, to our own devices, so to speak, in fixing this. That isn't a good thing either. Between SIA, ASIS, IAHSS, and what ever other security organizations are out there, I doubt that there will be an active willingness to come together to start setting broad standards. Even if they do, money will always be the primary concern, since the membership is made up, largely, of the executives from security companies who are looking at keeping their company alive in the competitive market.

    Leave a comment:


  • Limo LA
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity.
    I don't know your ONE was California, but State of California
    Bureau of Security and Investigative Service is under Department of Consumer affairs.

    DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs) web site states as

    The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is here to protect and serve California consumers while ensuring a competent and fair marketplace. DCA helps consumers learn how to protect themselves from unscrupulous and unqualified individuals. The Department also protects professionals from unfair competition by unlicensed practitioners.
    also

    To protect and serve consumers, the Department issues licenses in more than 100 business and 200 professional categories, including doctors, dentists, contractors, cosmetologists and automotive repair facilities. The Department of Consumer Affairs includes 40 regulatory entities (nine bureaus, one program, twenty-five boards, three committees, one commission, and one office). These entities establish minimum qualifications and levels of competency for licensure. They also license, register, or certify practitioners, investigate complaints and discipline violators. The committees, commission and boards are semiautonomous bodies whose members are appointed by the Governor and the Legislature. DCA provides them administrative support. DCA's operations are funded exclusively by license fees.
    at least in California, our business is not regulated by neither DOJ nor Department of Public Safety (Which we don't have, but something like those type of department)

    And I also understand SecTrainer say.
    BSIS (Licensing Agency) is not protecting public from Security industry like "Department of Fish and game" protect wild life from fishers and hunters.

    But Sadly, California BSIS is under Department of Consumer Affairs whose main goal is "Protect public from many type of business".

    They (BSIS) also do sting operation to enforce unlicensed, illegal and under qualified companies and person to protect consumers.
    Last edited by Limo LA; 02-19-2008, 11:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Our recent state laws were changed due to the mindless idiots behind a state run education body, an industry association, a union and sheer panic of law suits from the actions of a S/O. There was minimal input through the industry from those who have spent the majority of their career in casual or full time positions and making people with 30+ years industry experience, justify their existence is purely a waste of time.

    Have wages and education levels increased with these new responsibilities ?

    Yes this has added another 1.5 days to the training course which now runs for 9 days (incluing 1st aid) and all this for earning 15% above minimum wage. Why would an ex LEO migrate over to an industry where he is going to earn less money than someone who has just obtained their licence ?

    If you have ever heard the term "Rules for some and rules for others" you will understand why it is easier to have a blanket policy of hands off or observe and report or just basically ring 911 (or OOO for us).

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedi View Post
    For LEO, California POST has a rather rigid training curriculum that every academy must conform to. Is it time for a National/International SOST (Security Officers Standards and Training)?
    Not only California - POST standards are everywhere. They differ from state to state, and were initiated in large part by the passage of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Omnibus act established LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency, and provided funding in the form of grants for the states to establish training standards, etc., among many other things. Federal money for law enforcement agencies was usually tied to certain conditions, and money talks so the agencies complied with the conditions in order to get the do-re-mi.

    Prior to the Omnibus act, policing in many parts of the country was in much the same state that the security industry finds itself now. Not a few police departments gave officers from 60 to 90 hours of training, and hired any breathing soul who applied. Wages were often little better than unskilled labor positions. Corruption was common in many departments, at least on a petty scale.

    Something had to be done, and the law enforcement industry knew it, but they weren't going to do it "because it cost too much". "We just can't afford it!" was the common cry of the police chief/mayor/city councilman, etc.

    It took federal money to move local law enforcement agencies off the dime. So, where is the money to drive higher training standards in our industry going to come from? We don't have federal funding kicking our industry in the seat of the pants like the police did, and I sure don't see it coming from anywhere else.

    Setting standards is neither easy nor cheap. It involves, first, establishing some sort of authoritative body. Who would establish such a body? Then, this body has to do a lot of very hard work that has to be paid for somehow. How would this work be paid for?

    I believe that there are good reasons (here's the phrase you don't like) post-9/11 for the federal government to step in and intervene in the rather sorry state that the security industry has allowed itself to get into. There's a lot of critical infrastructure that's way, way, WAY below anything that could be called "best practices" with respect to security. Unfortunately, most of the CI in this country is privately owned, not government-owned, and I think there's a less than 1% chance the feds will step in. Don't ask me why, because I just don't know.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-19-2008, 06:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    All occupational regulations exist to protect society from unregulated activity. This is a very different thing from saying that security regulations exist to protect society from security companies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedi
    replied
    First off, SecTrainer, I agree with you completely that security and policing are very different animals. I used the term private "police" agencies, as that is a public perception of what a patrol company provides.

    Now, in continuing my role as a devil's advocate here...

    If we are all in agreement that the role of the state/government is to legislate the minimal standards, then is there a need to define standards as an industry for the next level? If so, how do we go about accomplishing it? Sure, there are organizations like IAHSS and ASIS who have market specific certifications, but these fall short when it comes to hands on training. For LEO, California POST has a rather rigid training curriculum that every academy must conform to. Is it time for a National/International SOST (Security Officers Standards and Training)?
    Last edited by Jedi; 02-19-2008, 05:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

    This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."
    That is the reason for Quebec's new law. I do not think it was necessary, setting up an agency to do it. We were always regulated. That is what law suits are for.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

    This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    Folks, you're looking at state licensing from the wrong angle. The licensing and training requirements aren't there to turn out cops.

    They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.
    Nathan, I'm afraid I can't quite agree with this characterization, unless we were to adopt the position that all occupational regulation is designed to protect the public from <bad actors in whatever occupation>, in which case we have only said the obvious. That is, in fact, what the state does, but it doesn't explain everything.

    Every occupation has limits and/or conditions of some kind on what its practitioners are allowed to do, and these limits and conditions will often form the bulk of the government regulations regarding that occupation, as would be expected. The state--especially as regulator--is not generally in the business of commanding affirmative duties (although there are exceptions - see SPECIAL VENUES below), but is in the business of proscribing certain forbidden activities, and also setting conditions for the performance of certain other activities.

    Since these form the "boundaries" of the occupation's activities, it is very important that practitioners understand exactly where those boundaries lie. Hence, the state says "Your people must know the boundaries and demonstrate at least certain fundamental skills". It is a very different thing between saying "We are here to ensure that security companies operate within proscribed boundaries" and saying "we are here to protect the public from security companies". Indeed, the state regulations exist in order to ENABLE security companies to operate (the alternative would be to prohibit them altogether) and to give the public some measure of CONFIDENCE that security companies will operate in certain ways.

    Beyond describing such boundaries, however, the state is basically silent with respect to most occupations. The legal assumption is that whatever is NOT forbidden or constrained in some way by law (which as a practical matter includes the interpretations handed down by case law) is legally permissible. That the state requires X hours of mandatory training that includes (but is not usually limited to) training in the legal constraints does NOT preclude the security company from offering more training in a wide variety of additional skills, etc. The state PRESUMES that the company will train its people beyond the minimums IF the company believes such training is appropriate to the duties the officers are to perform. (The civil law areas of torts and negligence make the same presumption, incidentally.)

    Now...do we have a number of security companies that do the minimum training and nothing more? Yes, we certainly do. But that is a company's BUSINESS decision and has nothing whatever to do with the state.

    Thus, we have two different forces at work here. One is the state's interest in seeing that services meet at least minimum standards. This is really the lesser of the two forces and only sets the "floor" for training. Beyond this there are a vast number of duties and their attendant additional training options that are both legally permissible for, and available to, the security company. The company makes business decisions about which, if any, of these additional options to employ based primarily on what it sees the cost:benefit ratio to be. The business forces have MUCH more influence than state regulations do on expectations with respect to SO duties and the relevant training provided.

    SPECIAL VENUES: There are times when the government does mandate certain duties and training beyond the "minimums". These are often federal in origin and usually apply to certain "high-risk" industries. At times, the government stops short of issuing a mandate and instead publishes "standards" or "recommendations". It is unwise, from a liability standpoint, for a security company to ignore these "suggestions" merely because they are not absolute mandates.

    BOTTOM LINE: When it comes to occupational and business regulation, the state is interested in establishing the minimum standards or expectations, and as such it must ensure that all practitioners demonstrate awareness of the proscribed boundaries. Within those boundaries, however, there is wide latitude for companies to act according to their business interests and it's not the state minimums that are driving those decisions - it's the marketplace, the power of which vastly eclipses the power of the state.

    So, with a real estate company, for instance, there are certain requirements about the knowledge and experience that a broker must have, constraints on the way he does business, etc. It would be strange, however, to say that these requirements and constraints are set in order to "protect the public from real estate brokers". Rather, they are what ENABLE real estate brokers to do business and the public to have some measure of confidence that they operate in the public interest. I suppose that you might say that the state is protecting the public from BAD real estate brokers, but you really do need that qualifier in there to make the statement true. The state has no interest in protecting the public from ETHICAL real estate brokers, nor does it have any objections if the broker implements policies and training for his people that go far beyond the minimums.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-19-2008, 03:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Limo LA
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.
    Thank you for reminding me that.
    Yes, licensing agency (bureau)'s duty is protect public from us (Some of us who would illegally and poorly operate Security service to public)

    I think Peace officer (LEO)'s privilege and power are given because they are working for public agency.

    California BSIS clearly stated that (off duty) P/O who are working as Private security officer may not have peace officer's privilege and power while he (she) is on duty as private security officer.

    If Someone who is not employed by public agency, even who finish POST or have PhD. of Police science, They do not have privilege as exception for duty to retrieve, not protected as waiver for arresting result (waived from civil or criminal liability for his arresting activity), do not have power as force of arrest (people may not resist to P/O's arrest thru if it's lawful or not but people can resist to citizen's arrest).

    Peace officer's privilege and power (and protection) are not because training or license to him (her), it was given to Public agency's duty.

    If I'm not mistaken, USC (Private University) use to have USC police.
    I don't know since but they changed it's name to USC department of public safety.
    None of Private University or college use word "police" anymore as I know.
    Only public (State) university (and school district) has Police department and it stated in Penal code section 830
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

    Even Oregon, Nevada, Arizona LEO are stated as California peace officer and has power and privilege as California Peace officers but
    Someone who work for Private companies are Security officer and doesn't have any police power even who use to be (or current) peace officer.

    and some of Private security officer who work for public agency as Security officer (not peace officer) are exempted for requirement of having BSIS issued Guard Card and/or BSIS firearm/Baton permit because they work for Public agency, "almost" treated as Peace officers.
    Last edited by Limo LA; 02-19-2008, 02:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Limo LA
    replied
    Especially, Clients of Personal Protection service don't expect S/O to observe and Report when their children are about to be kidnapped or client himself is about to be shot.
    No client hire Personal Protection Service for observe and report. If it was, it can be done by Nanny or House keepers.

    They are definitely expecting immediate Reaction and immediate Protection.
    But Security Officer's privilege (Right) is no more than Clients themselves and almost same as other bystanders by law.
    and I think little difference between S/O and clients'mind is that "Prevention" is second for client's mind, but it is (should be) first in S/O's mind.
    Last edited by Limo LA; 02-19-2008, 01:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    SecTrainer as usual, you have cut to the chase. We do not sell true security to the client; however, having said that, in most instances a procurement type does all the hiring of companies with little or no contact where the rubber meets the road. Shame on the collective US.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X