Union or Non-Union

[UtahProtectionForce]

As i begin the process of getting all the quals i need to be come a security owner, and finanical/legal aspects sqaured away, i am contemplating rather i should take a bold step for my state and make my company a union company were as 99.9 percent of the companines here in utah are non union, i do like the
idea of unions, but also understand that as a owner of a company if i were to do this i would also be likely to face some struggles with unions... this im aware of but would still like to consider it because i feel if i were to be unionized it would help me keep employees thus making my officers of higher calibur, and it would also mean higher client satisfaction ratings knowing that turn over would be lower and etc, because officers would be happier...

[SJPA-Agency]

well get ready to shell out alot more $$$$ for a "guard"

Unions you'll have contracted employees, and you won't be fire bad guards has easy as non-unions,

unions are ("supposedly") good for employees.
unions are BAD for business owners.

[N. A. Corbier]

Why would they be "a higher caliber?" What union would you be looking at? Generally speaking, the company doesn't ask a union, the employees request union representation.

[Rooney]

I think that is opening pandoras box. As a business owner I deal with both union and non-union suppliers. Truthfully we experience better service from non-union companies. The union companies do not have much turnover because they have a hard time being able to let someone go. The union representing them files a grievence against the company as soon as the company relays the information on letting someone go to the union. You can plan on spending about 35% more for employee and union expenses (at least). As for the higher quality of guards you will atract. Like hiring any employee the first thing that is needed is someone that needs a job. In most job fields the good ones are already working. And as a union if you happen to hire someone that does not work out, it will cost you much more to let them go. As a union though you "may" attract customers that will only hire union. But the costs associated with a union as a business owner will overcome that. (IMHO)

[Chucky]

Bidding for a contract around here is sometimes lost by a dime per hour. Other than for insurance purposes security does not make money for the company so they are hesitant to pay anymore than they have to. The only ones that may even be unionized would possibly be Nuke Plant Guards due to the training and pay scale they deal with. I would suggest not a good idea.

[N. A. Corbier]

Bidding for a contract around here is sometimes lost by a dime per hour. Other than for insurance purposes security does not make money for the company so they are hesitant to pay anymore than they have to. The only ones that may even be unionized would possibly be Nuke Plant Guards due to the training and pay scale they deal with. I would suggest not a good idea.

SEIU has a very good method of unionizing certain types of guards. They simply get a majority of all the guards in an office building to "demand union representation by the SEIU local." Doesn't matter what company they're with. They're security guards, at one client location, demanding SEIU represent them. That building just became union. No vote required, gets around the "security cannot be part of the same union as ..." rule, etc. Individual employees may band together.

But, you're saying, "Son of a... why are they allowed in the building to canvas the guards?" Because the people doing it are security personnel. Because the SEIU will file a petition with the Labor Relations Board if the company interferes. And because they ignore trespassing laws.

[HotelSecurity]

Like Nathan said, I've never heard of a business owner deciding if the employees were to be unionized or not. This is usually a decision made by the employees????

[UtahProtectionForce]

points taken. i was just throwing the idea around, and i was aware that it may cost more and etc, but i was unsure if i wanted to even consider it. but thanks for the helpful input.

[Chucky]

Quote myself
Yes! Thank you that is precisely the case. You saved me from digging through for the letter I got asking that we do not speak with them and to keep them off any property that we are watching.

These folks (SEIU) paid illegals to picket our office with signs saying that our lunch room was unsanitary and so were the bathrooms. Even though they never entered in our offices??? This security company is one of the largest personally owned in N.E. and offers more benefits than most.

Although I left them for armed I still have a warm spot in my heart for them. Forget that last bit as it's just the batteries in my cell phone heating up.

"Immigration Reform
Our System Is Broken" This is from their web site. They pray on the ignorant.
End quote

They tried to unionize a new TGIF near by with the same tactics and a Sheraton hotel by picketing on the road side with huge signs that said this establishment has black mold in their ice machines. I know first hand that there was no mold in either place as the local health inspector checked them both out. They claim that they are headquartered in Florida. So that being the case I think N.A. needs to contract a hit on these clowns.

[Investigation]

Unions

well get ready to shell out alot more $$$$ for a "guard"

Unions you'll have contracted employees, and you won't be fire bad guards has easy as non-unions,

unions are ("supposedly") good for employees.
unions are BAD for business owners.

Yes, unions are bad for business owners if you hire bad guards in the first place and pay substandard wages. I can see how companies who just want a “rent a cop” would not like the union, but on the same token, most contract companies I see around here severely lack professionalism.

- proud AFSCME member

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes, unions are bad for business owners if you hire bad guards in the first place and pay substandard wages. I can see how companies who just want a “rent a cop” would not like the union, but on the same token, most contract companies I see around here severely lack professionalism.

- proud AFSCME member

Which union are you referring to? I know you're not referring to the SEIU, simply because the SEIU's published positions on security are minimum risk door guards for 30 dollars an hour. (Boston Harold, 2006)

The union you belong to is for public employees and officers, including public law enforcement officers. Your union would not touch a security guard unless they worked for the government. I'm assuming you're in law enforcement or corrections.

Compare what your union does to what the SEIU does, and who they represent.

[SJPA-Agency]

Yes, unions are bad for business owners if you hire bad guards in the first place and pay substandard wages. I can see how companies who just want a “rent a cop” would not like the union, but on the same token, most contract companies I see around here severely lack professionalism.

There are some great, and professional agencies out there (like mine)

I re-enforce my statement, unions are crap.

[SecTrainer]

There are unions, and then there are unions. There are good things about unions, and there are bad things about them. You can't dump everything into one bag.

All in all, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing a really good union for security officers because it's very hard to see any other forces or influences that have the power or the ability to bring about real improvements in training, pay, benefits, equipment and working conditions for officers.

Unions historically have proven very beneficial in industries where workers are being given the short end of the stick and treated like "fodder" because they lack other forms of economic bargaining power. And, you have to respect the apprenticeship/journeyman programs that some unions have developed, which have translated into decent wages, etc.

As long as security companies are going to concentrate on doing business by making the low bid and then short-changing the officer because their profits are so skinny that they "can't afford" to pay decent wages, provide decent benefits, etc., and as long as the states promote so-called "standards" of 40 hours or less of training (which adds very little economic value to the officer), then some other form of influence is obviously needed. What else other than a union would that be?

Most unions no longer resemble the unions of the early 1900s. Today, enlightened union leadership understands that the union cannot simply go in and stomp all over the companies who employ its members. They learned from the auto industry that you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. And, the idea that you "can't fire bad union employees" is way overblown. No, you can't walk up and fire someone gratuitously, or on the first or perhaps even the second offense, depending on what it is, but there's plenty of union guys out of work who can testify that it's entirely possible to be fired from a union job. More to the point, "wrongful termination" lawsuits have literally exploded against non-union companies and they, too, are no longer nearly as free to fire people as they once were under the old "employment at will" legal principle. That's out the window, for all intents and purposes.

However, by negotiating for a better situation for its members, an effective union will force all security companies to reconsider their bidding practices. Union wages/benefits etc., plus their fixed and variable costs and the profit they need from their investment, would put a floor under their bids below which they could not go, and if it did nothing more than that, it would be an enormous benefit to the security profession.

It's too bad the companies have not realized on their own how destructive to this industry their business practices have been, because it would benefit themselves to learn that there are other pricing models than "low-bidder" and they woud do well to realize that security really is not a commodity market like beans or winter wheat, where the only question really is "how much?".

Unfortunately, far too many security companies are owned and run by people with absolutely no business education, few if any business skills, and absolutely no idea of how to run a business properly. Businesswise, they are literally clueless. "Low bidder" is all they know, and "screw the officer" is the inevitable result because there's no one else to screw except the client, and that happens too.

So, it seems that something or someone is going to have to force them to learn better business models, and at least a union contract sitting on their desk has some chance of pushing them in that direction because now they have to figure out how to run the company profitably while providing properly for their officers. Gee, what an idea!

[SJPA-Agency]

I agree with you on the most part, I dont beleive in under-bidding and paying min wage, I have worked for companies like that, I that is NOT how I run my business, I know, better officers cost more, I person getting paid more will preform better then the min-wager, because that person would not want to loose that great paying and professional job.

The truth is (for all your clients) that you get what you pay for.

Some clients dont really care about security, but in some cases they require security, but dont care who they are, what they do, and only how much they pay.

For you clients: Don't care about who is patrolling your property? Don't care what they do while they there? Care only how much we'll charge you? Don't call us.

[UtahProtectionForce]

There are unions, and then there are unions. There are good things about unions, and there are bad things about them. You can't dump everything into one bag.

All in all, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing a really good union for security officers because it's very hard to see any other forces or influences that have the power or the ability to bring about real improvements in training, pay, benefits, equipment and working conditions for officers.

Unions historically have proven very beneficial in industries where workers are being given the short end of the stick and treated like "fodder" because they lack other forms of economic bargaining power. And, you have to respect the apprenticeship/journeyman programs that some unions have developed, which have translated into decent wages, etc.

As long as security companies are going to concentrate on doing business by making the low bid and then short-changing the officer because their profits are so skinny that they "can't afford" to pay decent wages, provide decent benefits, etc., and as long as the states promote so-called "standards" of 40 hours or less of training (which adds very little economic value to the officer), then some other form of influence is obviously needed. What else other than a union would that be?

Most unions no longer resemble the unions of the early 1900s. Today, enlightened union leadership understands that the union cannot simply go in and stomp all over the companies who employ its members. They learned from the auto industry that you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

However, by negotiating for a better situation for its members, an effective union will force all security companies to reconsider their bidding practices. Union wages/benefits etc., plus their fixed and variable costs and the profit they need from their investment, would put a floor under their bids below which they could not go, and if it did nothing more than that, it would be an enormous benefit to the security profession.

It's too bad the companies have not realized on their own how destructive to this industry their business practices have been, because it would benefit themselves to learn that there are other pricing models than "low-bidder" and they woud do well to realize that security really is not a commodity market like beans or winter wheat, where the only question really is "how much?".

Unfortunately, far too many security companies are owned and run by people with absolutely no business education, few if any business skills, and absolutely no idea of how to run a business properly. Businesswise, they are literally clueless. "Low bidder" is all they know, and "screw the officer" is the inevitable result because there's no one else to screw except the client, and that happens too.

So, it seems that something or someone is going to have to force them to learn better business models, and at least a union contract sitting on their desk has some chance of pushing them in that direction because now they have to figure out how to run the company profitably while providing properly for their officers. Gee, what an idea!

Those are the main reasons.. why i was considering to become the first if union security company in utah, as in forcing better business conduct ....
but it is an idea i might toy with.. i dont know at this time as i still need 2000 hrs as a supervisor before i can create my company (as the state of utah requires 6000 hrs of supervisor or law enforcement experience to become a Qualified Agent of a company.. which ALL companies need to have to operate the company legally.. so i may not be able to start my company for about 1.5 years. but i am building models and ideas that should change the industry when it is time for my company to go to the field.