Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do supervisors check on us?

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

  • kingsman
    replied
    Sometimes even checking the Hotel register isn't enough. We had a situation where the card got misfiled, so when I took the new couple up to help with their luggage, we opened the door to a couple in bed. I don't think they even noticed me.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    yup

    Originally posted by Bill Warnock
    A good supervisor knows his troops because he gets off of his mattress and goes down into the ranks and finds out. How can you rate a person without first observing them?
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill
    Totally agree with ya. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    A good supervisor knows his troops because he gets off of his mattress and goes down into the ranks and finds out. How can you rate a person without first observing them?
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Warnock; 02-10-2007, 11:29 PM. Reason: Missing word

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    same way here

    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    It seems to me that at my place all the Officers I've caught goofing off have got themselves caught. No spying necessary on my part. They all know that when they use a key card to enter a room we can audit the lock & find out who & when they went into the room. Yet in the last year I got rid of 3 Officers who went into rooms at night to sleep. And I don't go around randomly auditing 500 locks. Yhey usually forget to "clean up the evidence". Housekeeping or worse, a guest checking in, finds a room that was supposed to be clean, dirty. I'm called to audit the lock & see that my guy has been going in & out of the room all night!
    we had a supervisor using the master key cards to enter a unit and watch tv at night...what got him cought however, was not checking the locks to see who had been entering the unit...it was him walking in on a couple that had rented the unit for their honeymoon....needless to say they busy handling bsiness when the supervisor popped in for some tv.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by locknid
    ahh yes totally forgot about that, our company uses nextel radios which have the gps in them, higherups can log-on to a webpage if need be and see if we are at the correct location. The threat of that keeps most people in check.
    That shouldn't be a threat, and they should have the field supervisors issued the GPS software as a Java app. If they can't find you, for any reason, they should be able to query that in the field.

    Not only does it keep you honest, it may be the thing that saves your life when you're unable to call for help.

    Leave a comment:


  • locknid
    replied
    ahh yes totally forgot about that, our company uses nextel radios which have the gps in them, higherups can log-on to a webpage if need be and see if we are at the correct location. The threat of that keeps most people in check.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by T202
    I just read an article on GPS shoes. That would keep you honest.
    What if I switch shoes? (Not that I would do something underhanded like that.. )

    Leave a comment:


  • T202
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Aw come on. You can trust me....honest.
    I just read an article on GPS shoes. That would keep you honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    I do agree with this explanation of your position. A supervisor only has so many hours in the day and he has to prioritize where and how he concentrates his time. Just the requirement to train as well as oversee newer employees means that the supervisor will spend more time with them and review their work more closely than the more experienced officers. Just don't get caught up in the temptation to believe that "trusted" officers no longer require at least some level of oversight and review.
    Aw come on. You can trust me....honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by locknid
    I am not saying they completely stop checking on those employees, but usually it is on much different terms then a normal check.
    I do agree with this explanation of your position. A supervisor only has so many hours in the day and he has to prioritize where and how he concentrates his time. Just the requirement to train as well as oversee newer employees means that the supervisor will spend more time with them and review their work more closely than the more experienced officers. Just don't get caught up in the temptation to believe that "trusted" officers no longer require at least some level of oversight and review.

    Leave a comment:


  • locknid
    replied
    I am not saying they completely stop checking on those employees, but usually it is on much different terms then a normal check. Usually helping out with an arrest, just to come by and say hello, in the area so swung by on the way to another post check. The company I am with is still relatively young, about 6 years old. very few of the employees have been with the company for more then two, even fewer have been with the company longer. The uppers are very strict and the nogood employees are weeded out pretty darn fast, usually within months. Plus with the areas we work, kinds of properties, and the way we function in our duties takes a special kind of person.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by locknid
    Officers who are known to do a good job, make arrests, have extensive detailed activity reports, and have been fine on past checks usually are not checked on in the future, but that means they trust the crap outta you.
    Trust, but verify. How often have we heard someone say: "He worked here for 23 years and never had a negative comment in his reviews. Why would he start stealing from us/start to disobey orders/start shooting up the place?"

    Things happen that cause trusted employees to swerve off course. Maybe his wife became ill with cancer, and he faced enormous financial pressures. Or, maybe he got passed over for a promotion and became angry. Or, he had taken just one too many snide comments from someone. There are so many things that can happen in an individual's life that can push anyone to the brink or disillusion them about the value of their years of faithful service. "Look what it's gotten me to give my life to this company...nothing!"

    When you dissect incidents in which trusted employees "suddenly" go haywire, you usually discover that it really wasn't "sudden" at all. There were signs - sometimes starting long beforehand - that someone should have noticed. Creditors start calling the workplace. Absences and tardiness started increasing. Alcohol was smelled. Assignments were handled with less accuracy or reliability. And precisely because the employee WAS trusted for so long, no one said anything. Subtle behavioral changes were seen but never understood for what they were. People said to themselves, "Surely, not Bob! Why, he's our best employee!"

    Trust, but verify. Always. This doesn't mean in a punitive sense necessarily, either. But if you have an employee who is in some kind of trouble, and this shows up in his performance, he shouldn't be ignored simply because he's "trusted". He needs help and intervention, and his long term of service should not turn out to be a factor that works against him because the supervisor thinks he no longer needs to pay much attention to "good old faithful Bob".
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-10-2007, 03:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • locknid
    replied
    I have known some of our supervisors to kinda semi-spy on some people but they already had several reasons to do so, possibly some already amounting to termination. Most of the time though they randomly check guys in their beat to make sure they are there, doing what they are supposed to. I have heard some good stories about checks, and reasons for termination. makes me wonder how some of these people have made it this far in life. Officers who are known to do a good job, make arrests, have extensive detailed activity reports, and have been fine on past checks usually are not checked on in the future, but that means they trust the crap outta you.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    It seems to me that at my place all the Officers I've caught goofing off have got themselves caught. No spying necessary on my part. They all know that when they use a key card to enter a room we can audit the lock & find out who & when they went into the room. Yet in the last year I got rid of 3 Officers who went into rooms at night to sleep. And I don't go around randomly auditing 500 locks. Yhey usually forget to "clean up the evidence". Housekeeping or worse, a guest checking in, finds a room that was supposed to be clean, dirty. I'm called to audit the lock & see that my guy has been going in & out of the room all night!

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    The term "supervision" means, literally, "over-sight", implying that one of the primary roles of the supervisor is to watch his people. Here, "watch" means more than merely looking, but gathering information from any number of sources in a sincere effort to know what your people are doing.

    The operative word is "know", or at least "reasonably believe"...not merely "suspect" or "imagine"...and that's the real problem with the idea of using snitches. Even cops can't just go get a search warrant on the word of a snitch. They have to declare in the warrant application why they have good reason to believe the snitch (past reliability, for instance), and what they have done to specifically verify what the snitch has told them in this particular instance. It takes both the information and the verification to add up to "probable cause".

    So, while "supervision by snitch" is an absolutely horrible (and lazy) supervisory model, it's an equally bad suggestion that the supervisor should simply dismiss information received spontaneously from an employee (whether it's about another security officer, a client's employee, a vendor, or whoever). For one thing, if the information turns out not to be true, you would probably have reason to believe that there's a serious personal conflict between the two employees, and that in itself would be something that you as a supervisor need to know about and address.

    Unobtrusive observation of employee performance and unscheduled visits do not constitute "spying", incidentally. All supervisors do this in one way or another, whether intentionally or not, unless they're positively brain-dead. Knowing what people do when they think no one is watching is an absolute obligation of the supervisor. After all, let's be real, shall we? How many people who goof off, violate policies, ignore post orders or even commit crimes such as theft on a property will do any of these things while they know the supervisor is watching them?

    Unfortunately, one of the obligations of the supervisor is to make it his business to know - not just hope - that his people are performing properly, and the sad reality is that this also implies the discovery of behavior that discredits all of us. Certainly, this means looking at logs, guard tour system records, etc. However, people who engage in such despicable behaviors are not likely to include in their log: "Goofed off. Slept 4 hours. Smacked a transient upside the head with my flashlight. Stole $100 of engine parts." If you've ever worked anywhere where people were doing such things, it's almost impossible for me to believe that you - as a competent, honest officer - didn't wonder why in hell the supervisor didn't make it his business to know about it and wasn't doing something about it. Well, you can't have it both ways. Sometimes, this means taking information from the people who may be in the only position to know about the behavior, and I'll go one step further - you have an obligation to report it, at least when it rises to the level of imposing an unfair burden on other officers or casting their own integrity in question. One good thing to remember is that if the client should observe such behaviors and fire your company, all the good officers get terminated right along with the few bad apples.

    (Incidentally, in a well-run company, someone will also be watching the supervisor to determine that he himself is doing his job, and doing it fairly, competently and in compliance with labor laws, company policy, client requirements, etc. You can't afford to have "unsupervised supervisors" any more than you can have unsupervised officers.) That's why every company should have some mechanism for the officer to be able to report supervisory malfeasance - and it is literally a violation of the federal whistle-blower law for any company to take any reprisal actions against people who report any form of malfeasance. "Reprisal" is very broadly interpreted, meaning movement to undesirable shifts or posts, reduction in hours, denial of promotional opportunities...the list is almost endless...and I guarantee you that the DOL/EEOC *will* take action on whistleblower reprisal complaints.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-10-2007, 02:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X