Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contract v. in house

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

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    In-house is almost always the better choice, IMO, especially when it comes to hiring competent people. It's hard to find in my area. Contract security dominates here.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by aka Bull
    Besides the adversarial atmosphere they want to create between themselves and their officers, themselves and the client employees - I find it interesting that they say no liability issues, that the contract company takes on the liability. I hardly think so. The client can still face liability issues as well. I can't see any contract company jumping forward and saying they're responsible only. The client is still responsibile for hiring the comany and ultimately for their work on site. The client can't slide away by saying "they are only our contractors".

    Only the courts will decide whether any liability rests with the client.
    Again, this is a huge selling point of WBS and contract security in general. Since the guard is disposable, there are no fraternization issues. Guard taking to your people too much? We'll find one who won't. The guard should be watching everyone, reporting everything, and if they're "buddy buddy" with anyone on the site then the guard is "in on it," whatever "it" is.

    The always on probation is another thing that amuses me. The employees are 100% interchangable and disposable. Don't like your guard? Can't articulate why? Don't have to. We'll fire him anyway because he doesn't pay us money, you do.

    Every company I know of has stated that they take on 100% liability. Its in their contract. I don't know the legality of transferring liability, but I have seen a company be solely liable for an event, with the client transferring all liability on the guard service provider.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    My type of security is specialized. I can't see how they can get people to fill in for sickness, holidays etc any easier than I can with in-house people. You can't take a person who normally works in a closed wharehouse one day to fill in at an hotel.

    They play up not interacting with staff. We have more interaction with guests & visitors, trespassers etc. Hotel security's main duties are not to police the employees, that's the department Heads job.

    I've always had a problem with "serving two masters".
    Oh, but Weiser believes you can take someone from a construction site or warehouse and put them at a hotel. Its the whole "untrained observer" concept. Since their basic duties are always "observe, report, do not intervene," they employees are pretty interchangable.

    All companies play up not interacting with the staff. This is because in many cases, the guard is present to observe and report both internal and external issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Besides the adversarial atmosphere they want to create between themselves and their officers, themselves and the client employees - I find it interesting that they say no liability issues, that the contract company takes on the liability. I hardly think so. The client can still face liability issues as well. I can't see any contract company jumping forward and saying they're responsible only. The client is still responsibile for hiring the comany and ultimately for their work on site. The client can't slide away by saying "they are only our contractors".

    Only the courts will decide whether any liability rests with the client.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    My feelings as well! I have worked both sectors, and in house is so much better. Having worked contract, getting fill-ins is troublesome, a client wants you to go away, they call the supplier, and you have a new site the next day for enforcing regulations, you get treated like an outsider which can hinder investigations, and when the contract ends, you end. With In house, you stay at one location, you know the ins and outs, people, and everything else alot better, you have more of a vested interest. In my experience, in house, you get treated better.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    My type of security is specialized. I can't see how they can get people to fill in for sickness, holidays etc any easier than I can with in-house people. You can't take a person who normally works in a closed wharehouse one day to fill in at an hotel.

    They play up not interacting with staff. We have more interaction with guests & visitors, trespassers etc. Hotel security's main duties are not to police the employees, that's the department Heads job.

    I've always had a problem with "serving two masters".

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    All that basically tells me is they want all their employees to be polarized from the client, low paid, untrained, miserable, and subject to termination at any time.
    What he said. I particularly liked the "guards are always on probation" statement. How can any company expect any degree of loyalty from their employees if the company has no loyalty to their employees?
    Last edited by histfan71; 08-27-2006, 03:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Nothing on that page is untrue, and they are a business, so of course they are going to play up the advantages without listing the disadvantages.

    Contract Security exists because it benifits the contractor (they get paid for the service duh lol) and offers many benifits to the client, just like all outsourcing benifits a company. It's the workers who gets screwed.

    When I worked for Wackenhut they had a pamphlet they'd give out about how having Custom Protection Officers were better than having off-duty police for some of the same reasons, plus the fact that off duty police had limitations that private CPOs don't. All of it was true as well, but like Weiser, they didn't mention any of the advantages of off duty police either. Pretty standard business practice.

    Slightly off topic: What was dirty (IMO) is how lobbiest employed by the private security industry (with the support of a few police associations who represent municpal and county full time Law Enforcement Officers) keep trying to get laws passed that would remove the exemption peace officers have from the Private Security Act (the exemption allow full time paid peace officers to work off duty security jobs). The last bill would create two "classes" of peace officer, class 1 (city police, state troopers, and deputy sheriff's mostly) and class 2 (everyone else, campus police, Park Rangers/Wardens, Airport Police, Deputy Constables, Deputy marshals, TABC Agents ect ect). Class 1 could work off duty, class 2 couldn't.

    Every legislative session a bill doing something like this is introduced. it's shot down every time. Also every session, a bill allowing Reserve officer to work off duty is introduced, and it's shot down. Same thing with bill's that would create real "private police" in Texas. It's like a small undeclared war every session lol. And everytime nothing changes.......

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    All that basically tells me is they want all their employees to be polarized from the client, low paid, untrained, miserable, and subject to termination at any time.

    Leave a comment:


  • EMTGuard
    started a topic Contract v. in house

    Contract v. in house

    Ok. This isn't ment to be a us vs them or who's better. The thing is that I found this page - http://64.225.215.3/weiser_v_inhouse.htm while websurfing one night. Reading it gave me conflicting feelings. As a contract SO I can se many postitives but also many negatives with the arguements Wieser uses to justify the use of contract SOs.
    Right off the bat I see one that really pissed me off and let me know that this is probably a company I'd not want to work for.
    1. Right to remove any guard, any time, without cause.
    Now the company I work for tends to put you on a drop and you almost NEVER work anywhere else until either you quit or they loose the contract. So we really become familiar with the facility and the employees. I see the problems with this sometimes when we become so intergrated into the company that some people don't realize that we are contract and don't answer to them. That's why I can sort of agree with statements like
    3. In-House familiarity tends to inhibit guard performance.
    but at the same time it's that famililiarity that ensures we know the different departments, their supervisors and when answering the switchboards we are able to forward the calls to the proper extensions.
    Take a look at the page and lets have a friendly discussion on specific things you feel about the points made by that company.

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X