Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Combination in-house/contract department

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

  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    And that's how it should be. But then, the only reason that your contract people aren't doing the same duties that your in-house people is the company absolutely fears direct interaction in safety issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    That's where the problems start, when the proprietary uniform starts overriding the contract uniform. Everyone there now knows that the contract uniform is "wrong" and "bad," and they don't have to listen to him anymore.
    I know that can happen Nathan, no doubt. My normal tactic when called to hear some "complaint" or "appeal" is to listen to the person and then explain to them that they need to deal with the contract officer - not me. Really gets them confused when I do that. I then have the contract officer step up and continue where he/she left off.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by aka Bull
    The view held by all staff towards contract as carrying the same weight and authority as any in-house officer is one of the building blocks in giving the contract officer the confidence to move forward to deal with the public in the hospital setting - which is our prime contact group. Members of the public have found out when trying to "appeal" a decision made by a contract officer that what has been decreed shall be complied with. While the public may try and explain all they get told is that the decision of the officer enforcing the rules is non-negotiable - regardless of the uniform worn.
    That's where the problems start, when the proprietary uniform starts overriding the contract uniform. Everyone there now knows that the contract uniform is "wrong" and "bad," and they don't have to listen to him anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    The answer might be in your response. You mentioned their reception by "the rest of the employees". All of the cases I'm talking about involve security duties that deal more with the public than with employees.
    The view held by all staff towards contract as carrying the same weight and authority as any in-house officer is one of the building blocks in giving the contract officer the confidence to move forward to deal with the public in the hospital setting - which is our prime contact group. Members of the public have found out when trying to "appeal" a decision made by a contract officer that what has been decreed shall be complied with. While the public may try and explain all they get told is that the decision of the officer enforcing the rules is non-negotiable - regardless of the uniform worn.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by aka Bull
    I don't see any reason why a contract officer should wear anything other than the company uniform. It isn't what uniform he/she wears that makes the difference in a mixed in-house/contract department. The difference stems from how the in-house staff train the contract officers, how the in-house staff integrate them into the team, and how the in-house department insures the contract officers are not being disrespected by the rest of the employees. Good officers, trained properly and supervised fairly are good officers - regardless of the uniform.
    The answer might be in your response. You mentioned their reception by "the rest of the employees". All of the cases I'm talking about involve security duties that deal more with the public than with employees.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    I don't remember if I've brought this up before but I too hate it when contract people wear uniforms as if they were in-house. (Unlike where Nathan is from there is no law to stop it).

    There is more & more of it in Montreal.
    I don't see any reason why a contract officer should wear anything other than the company uniform. It isn't what uniform he/she wears that makes the difference in a mixed in-house/contract department. The difference stems from how the in-house staff train the contract officers, how the in-house staff integrate them into the team, and how the in-house department insures the contract officers are not being disrespected by the rest of the employees. Good officers, trained properly and supervised fairly are good officers - regardless of the uniform.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    I don't remember if I've brought this up before but I too hate it when contract people wear uniforms as if they were in-house. (Unlike where Nathan is from there is no law to stop it).

    There is more & more of it in Montreal.

    Leave a comment:


  • LavianoTS386
    replied
    ^ Putting it that way sounds a whole lot better.

    In the high-rise building I work at the director is of course in-house and the rest (except for on other guy) are contract. I think the thing I dislike the most about the contract/in-house thing is the seperate uniforms. Our building has several state agencies that contract through Securitas. They have nothing to do with building operations. So with the in-house uniforms, our Allied uniforms and Securitas' (whose uniforms look like dish rags), it's kind of a who's who of security.

    (For those of you wondering...I work part-time for allied and at the college)

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by LavianoTS386
    ^ That sounds really really bad. Hearing that there's no way I'd want to be working at your site. Not only would I be 2nd rate in the department, but I'd have my bosses on me and in-house guys on my case. That's too much back watching for me. Further being second rate in the department can make you second rate to the employees. I don't like it at all.
    It's not bad at all. No contract officer is treated by us as being second rate. Doesn't fit with the atmosphere we work in. Contract officers are shown the same respect as any officer, staff member, patient or visitor to our hospital. We teach them the posting assignments and we do not need the contract company sending some street supervisor in to us and trying to tell these officers what they need to be doing. They are not experienced in the operations, policies and procedures of our hospital or department.

    We are a team oriented department and do not scrutinize our contract officers any differently than our in-house officers. They have a streamlined command and do not answer (operationally) to two different chains of command. Plus, any staff member treating our contract officers as lesser beings will find out very quickly how we don't tolerate such disrespect. Our Director has, more than once, hauled up other department employees for making this kind of mistake.

    Our contract officers are well trained on the posts they are assigned to and are left to accomplish the duties with no more supervision than any in-house officer. To do otherwise would be insulting to them and to us as a department.

    I know this as I am a lead officer on the shift and prior to joining the in-house side a couple of years ago I was the contract site lead for the company prior to our current one.

    You shouldn't really judge us until you've seen how it works in our hospital. We have contract officers that have pulled temporary duty ask about being permanently assigned to the account. We pick our officers as carefully as possible and have a low turnover rate among the contract officers.

    I might also add that there are only three assignments in the hospital that can not be pulled by contract officers - Emergency Department Lead Officer, Shift Lead Officer, and Shift Supervisor. Otherwise they may be assigned to any of the other posts we have.
    Last edited by aka Bull; 09-02-2006, 12:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LavianoTS386
    replied
    ^ That sounds really really bad. Hearing that there's no way I'd want to be working at your site. Not only would I be 2nd rate in the department, but I'd have my bosses on me and in-house guys on my case. That's too much back watching for me. Further being second rate in the department can make you second rate to the employees. I don't like it at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    At our hospital all of our contract officers work under the operational control of the in-house supervisors for the shift they are assigned to. The contract site lead officer has say only in administrative matters pertaining to the contract company.

    Contract officers post assignments and issues like time off are decided by the shift supervisors or in-house lead officers.

    By the terms of the contract any contract officer assigned to the hospital can not be assigned to any other site the company has. We have exclusive use of the officers on our account.

    Generally it works without a problem and we don't have the contract officers (who do wear their company uniform) acting as if they're in-house.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Easy. By sending over people and ignoring them. They basically become in-house employees who work for you.

    "Your company may pay your check, but your butt belongs to me."

    Its even funnier when they wear different uniforms and stop thinking they're contract. At a major resort, they did this. Different uniforms, identified themselves as in-house, etc. Too bad the state popped em for not having the company logo on their uniform.

    Leave a comment:


  • SD Security
    replied
    How do you have contract security from a private security company report directly to an in-house supervisor? That sounds like a major co-employment issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeff194307
    replied
    My first security job after I retired from the military was at Sacramento Municiple Utility District. They had a director of security who we reported to. The contract specifically stated that he had total supervisory control of our guards. This was in 1982, so the concept is nothing new. Our company field supervisors were not allowed on site and the director of security interviewed all perspective officers, no one worked there without his ok.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    The "replacements" is old hat. A certain company with a fondness for tan uniforms (that one of our members is "formerly known as") had a fondness for doing something amazingly funny.

    As we all know, Custom Protection Officers are supposed to be either a Criminal Justice Degree graduate or former law enforcement / military only. They are Wackenhut's only armed "Observe and Report Only" security guard job class. (I am ignoring the Global Response Team, since its just Rent-an-Army.)

    My former employer would acquire clients from Tampa's Wackenhut Office because the following scenerio was used frequently on new contracts. I don't know if this is a branch thing, or a national thing, or what.

    New client recieves his new CPO. The CPO has a nice new uniform, new duty rig, new revolver, new handcuffs, and new speedloaders. That's about it. He is a former law enforcement officer or military, he has about 10-20 years in both. In other words, he's career. He is efficent and useful. He is what your paying the company for.

    A month later, he is rotated out for "shift reasons," or something like that. You get someone who's had a uniform for awhile. It still looks OK. They're former law enforcement, but usually a special or reservist or some other non-full time status. He is also working at a smaller pay rate than the first CPO due to his less experience. Company is getting the difference.

    He lasts for about a month or two. He is replaced with a CPO with no LE or military experience, only a criminal justice degree. He's making less money, doesn't really care about being there. Company pockets the difference.

    Finally, you no longer even get a CPO, you get a regular security guard with a gun on. About that time, the client bails, but Wackenhut had the contract for awhile, and they realize its easier to just take the damn guard and wait for the contract to expire.
    Nathan:
    Well said, well said indeed. Bottom line and how much of a service for the least amount of money. Maybe the client won't notice. Right!!
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X