Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should States require Security Officers to undergo state-mandated training??

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

  • Should States require Security Officers to undergo state-mandated training??

    Hi all,

    In your opinion should all 50 states require security officers to go through state mandated training courses?? If so, what would that training entail??

    Sean Hickey

  • #2
    Yes. However, the main issue seems to be what type of training. There are some states that don't mandate any training.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the CORI restrictions for security in MA needs to be a bit stricter. Understanding of the English language, ability to read/write as well as laws pertaining to us (trespassing etc). There are an alarming amount of people in this industry with control issues, problems with authority, mentally unstable and a slew of other problems. Although most don't need to be sworn, the simple power trip these types get can be dangerous. Not every security officer will deal or is expected to act like someone in my position is and vice versa. Different jobs require different amount and levels of training pertinent to their duties.
      Sergeant Phil Esterhaus: "Hey, let's be careful out there.."

      THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS WEBSITE/BLOG ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unfortunately, the answer to this question doesn't matter, one way or the other. As we've seen in the past, the large security companies, which have no interest in any meaningful training standards that would cost them money and cut into their profits, will see to it that any so-called "standard" or "mandated training requirement" is reduced to nothing but mere window dressing.

        They really don't want a standard at all, but if it looks like they have to have one, they'll turn that to their advantage by creating a "faux standard" to go along with their "faux security" product. Then they can tout "certification" (or whatever it's called) to their clients. This gives the client a "faux sense of confidence" that they're buying a quality service, when in fact they're not because the "standard" only mandates 23 minutes of boring "O&R" video followed by a 5-minute lecture on the importance of wearing clean underwear in case an officer is shot and has to go to the hospital. These companies KNOW that clients have no idea what the standard IS, and much less idea what IT SHOULD BE. All the client sees is the puffery: "OUR OFFICERS MEET AND EXCEED (meaning a 6-minute underwear lecture instead of 5) THE STATE CERTIFICATION STANDARD!" And voila! Suddenly the threat of being faced with a real training standard is wiped out and turned to the biggies' advantage.

        The biggies have a number of ways to influence and water down any "standard" that might raise its ugly head. First, they would likely be invited by the legislature to contribute to the writing of such mandatory-training legislation - after all, they're the acknowledged "experts", right?? Second, they have lobbyists. Third, they make political campaign contributions to the legislators who play ball with them. Fourth, they know how to schmooze their way around state capitols (informal influence, but a little free golf, wining, dining and partying can be very effective).

        And it's not just in the legislative process that the big compnies exert influence. Look what they did to the ASIS Security Officer Training Standard, which is laughable. No, wait - I lie. It's not possible to laugh and puke at the same time.
        Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-12-2014, 04:46 PM.
        "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

        "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

        "There is nothing new under the sun." - Eccleseastes 1:9

        "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

        Comment


        • #5
          Only if the security guard is armed or has arrest powers.
          Otherwise no.
          Why would a security guard who's only job is to sit in a warehouse and call police if he sees anything need state mandated training? Most security guards are just there to open and lock doors. There really is no need to even license these "watchmen" let alone train them.

          Comment


          • #6
            That reply makes no sense. Analyze what you just said. If you feel that way, why train Correctional Officers if you just have them watching inmates?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zm88 View Post
              I think the CORI restrictions for security in MA needs to be a bit stricter. Understanding of the English language, ability to read/write as well as laws pertaining to us (trespassing etc). There are an alarming amount of people in this industry with control issues, problems with authority, mentally unstable and a slew of other problems. Although most don't need to be sworn, the simple power trip these types get can be dangerous. Not every security officer will deal or is expected to act like someone in my position is and vice versa. Different jobs require different amount and levels of training pertinent to their duties.
              Two thumbs up on your viewpoint and SecTrainer's. I do ask that states, and Massachusetts is real bad about this.not,
              having some political appointee oversee standards of training who have not a clue what's what in training of a Good Security Officer.
              Last edited by copelandamuffy; 08-12-2014, 04:43 PM.
              http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ Greatest Comedy team ever!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by copelandamuffy View Post
                Two thumbs up on your viewpoint and SecTrainer's. I do ask that states, and Massachusetts is real bad about this.
                having some political appointee oversee standards of training who have not a clue what's what in training of a Good Security Officer.
                Inadequate (meaning CHEAP) standards will always suck the oxygen out of any effort to establish adequate (read, MORE COSTLY) standards. And once there's a poor standard in place, you'll play holy Hell trying to upgrade it to anything better. "We don't need no stinkin' new standard. We already have one!" - the line that will win the debate every time.
                "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                "There is nothing new under the sun." - Eccleseastes 1:9

                "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ContractSec Level III View Post
                  Only if the security guard is armed or has arrest powers.
                  Otherwise no.
                  Why would a security guard who's only job is to sit in a warehouse and call police if he sees anything need state mandated training? Most security guards are just there to open and lock doors. There really is no need to even license these "watchmen" let alone train them.
                  You oversimplify the case. Between a "doorknob-shaking watchman" and someone who has what might be called full-blown armed security responsibilities, there are many, many gradations of service duties and expectations.
                  Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-12-2014, 04:52 PM.
                  "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                  "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                  "There is nothing new under the sun." - Eccleseastes 1:9

                  "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                    Inadequate (meaning CHEAP) standards will always suck the oxygen out of any effort to establish adequate (read, MORE COSTLY) standards. And once there's a poor standard in place, you'll play holy Hell trying to upgrade it to anything better. "We don't need no stinkin' new standard. We already have one!" - the line that will win the debate every time.
                    To his credit former congressman Barney Frank was pro active on standards of the Security Guard Industry
                    Whatever maybe , he represented my district. Much what you say ST, I wrote to him 20 years ago, and he supported
                    this. He wrote me a personal letter that he would do what he could
                    http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ Greatest Comedy team ever!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by copelandamuffy View Post
                      To his credit former congressman Barney Frank was pro active on standards of the Security Guard Industry
                      Whatever maybe , he represented my district. Much what you say ST, I wrote to him 20 years ago, and he supported
                      this. He wrote me a personal letter that he would do what he could
                      SecTrainer gives Barney Frank one (very tiny) gold star.
                      "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                      "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Eccleseastes 1:9

                      "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ContractSec Level III View Post
                        Only if the security guard is armed or has arrest powers.
                        Otherwise no.
                        Why would a security guard who's only job is to sit in a warehouse and call police if he sees anything need state mandated training? Most security guards are just there to open and lock doors. There really is no need to even license these "watchmen" let alone train them.
                        Poor background checks and non mandated training causes bad apples to slip through the cracks. At a job I worked at we had someone with drug distribution and weapons charges who had no business being in the security field. He was also a thief. Opening and locking doors isn't a meaningless job nor one that doesn't hold great responsibility. Copper theft from abandoned/closed down sites, active shooter incidents at office complexes and various other sites that may not require an armed or sworn guard still hold a great deal of responsibility for the officer. State mandated training also improves accountability and gives you a better candidate depending on how I. Depth the training is. I had to attend just 100 hours to be licensed as an unarmed special police officer, and I assure you bad apples still fall through those cracks as well.
                        Sergeant Phil Esterhaus: "Hey, let's be careful out there.."

                        THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS WEBSITE/BLOG ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^^this^^^

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ContractSec Level III View Post
                            Only if the security guard is armed or has arrest powers.
                            Otherwise no.
                            Why would a security guard who's only job is to sit in a warehouse and call police if he sees anything need state mandated training? Most security guards are just there to open and lock doors. There really is no need to even license these "watchmen" let alone train them.
                            Now I completely agree with you on this but you fail to see how this will be applied. As we all know there are unarmed guards securing armed sites all over the country. Security companies are still using watchmen to secure sites outside of the scope both their training and ability. This right here is why training has become the issue that it is. Yes I do understand that watchmen do not need specialized training but there should be some level of training to ensure proficiency, when the watchmen have to secure a real site. The industry has done this to its self by placing a body just to fill an empty slot on the schedule.
                            Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb.
                            Spiro Agnew

                            Why yes I am a glorified babysitter , I am here to politely ask you to follow the rules , if not daddy comes to spank you and put you in time out its your choice - Me

                            Luck is a red hair woman , if you ever dated one you know there remarkably dangerous , my personal preference is to be competent and let luck join the ride if she so chooses .- Clint Smith

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zm88 View Post
                              Poor background checks and non mandated training causes bad apples to slip through the cracks. At a job I worked at we had someone with drug distribution and weapons charges who had no business being in the security field. He was also a thief. Opening and locking doors isn't a meaningless job nor one that doesn't hold great responsibility. Copper theft from abandoned/closed down sites, active shooter incidents at office complexes and various other sites that may not require an armed or sworn guard still hold a great deal of responsibility for the officer. State mandated training also improves accountability and gives you a better candidate depending on how I. Depth the training is. I had to attend just 100 hours to be licensed as an unarmed special police officer, and I assure you bad apples still fall through those cracks as well.
                              If employers feel like they need a reliable security guard to avoid theft, then they can conduct the background checks themselves. A security guard who will have zero interaction with the public and even some that do (like the security guards who are just glorified plumbers), isn't the concern of the state and thus will not need to license them.

                              Comment

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              300x250

                              Collapse

                              Mid 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Super Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X