Security Guard License

[Mr. Security]

Any other activity that requires a license bestows privileges to the holder not exercisable by a private citizen. For example: driving, scuba, fishing, flying, etc. What privilege do I have as an O&R security guard that a private citizen doesn't, other than working in security? (Big deal) My hourly rate didn't increase. In fact, the only thing that increased was the state's licensing revenue.

My point is this: O&R security guards shouldn't be required to have a license. We do not detain, make arrests, or carry weapons. I believe that a license should be reserved for guards who actually do the aforementioned things.

What do you think?

[BUCKSHOT]

I honestly think it's a great thing. It gives the officer perhaps some sence of meaning and closure as to what he or she is. It also is good backup when scumbags come up to you and say...I could do your job right now!!

[HotelSecurity]

I think the licensing requirement helps keep the criminal element out of the field. Most places that require a license won't give one to someone with a criminal record. Even in your type of O&R security a criminal can take advantage by observing & NOT reporting or by observing & reporting to the wrong people!

[N. A. Corbier]

Licensing is present in most cases, as I've stated before, to protect the public from unlicensed persons "abusing the public trust" that "the public places in security and guard services."

In other words, you are nothing more than a private citizen, but you're not to be trusted in your profession as too many before you have done bad things.

Its 100% consumer protection in most states.

[bigshotceo]

I think it's funny that here in Ontario the licenced guards tend be less qualified than the unlicenced ones, since contract guards must be licenced while in-house don't.

[HotelSecurity]

I think it's funny that here in Ontario the licenced guards tend be less qualified than the unlicenced ones, since contract guards must be licenced while in-house don't.

Same in Quebec!

[FDG06]

When you remove the licensing requirement, you also loose credibility, not only in the eyes of the general public who dont respect most security to begin with, to those you interact with while on duty, but to the legal system. Even in an O&R position, it is looked apon as a more credible source, in any reporting they make, directives, calls to 911, statements to the court in a proceeding, then that of a normal citizen..you are in effect, a "licensed professional" and no matter what level of a professional you are on the very tall totem pole of what is now all lumped under the "security" umbrella. Its not comparable to getting a fishing license, that is merley a permission slip to utilize a natural resource during a particular time & place..if you were to remove a licensing requirement, then, those who claim to be able to your job, could actually do your job...or maybe worse, you would no longer have a job..lol

[Mall Director]

Its a money making scheme for your local government..

Dont mean to be so synical, but there is truth behind the statement made by Mr. Security. I find that even those that are licensed can act as badly as those who arent. I dont agree with licensing, but instead would rather see a national and state certification process being enforced.

[Special Investigator]

Licensing is present in most cases, as I've stated before, to protect the public from unlicensed persons "abusing the public trust" that "the public places in security and guard services." In other words, you are nothing more than a private citizen, but you're not to be trusted in your profession as too many before you have done bad things. Its 100% consumer protection in most states.

I find that even those that are licensed can act as badly as those who arent.

I agree with both of you 100%

In SE WI, private security has a very bad reputation. Under trained, unqualified people are common in this industry around here. To many security persons go around acting like cops and overstepping their authority.

Example: I had a security person pull out a badge in a local fast food joint a few days ago on a couple of kids who were getting loud and a little rowdy. He told the kids to leave the premises. I recognized the badge as a security badge and confronted this guy and the friend he was with. I asked him if he was security for the resturant and his reply was "what business is it of yours?" I asked him if he was a police officer. I got the same reply. I promptly pulled out my ID and identified myself as a Special Investigator for the Circuit Court & asked him what authority gives him the right to pull out his badge and 'imply' that he was a police officer. Again he said I should mind my own busness and walk away. Meanwhile my partner made a call to the local PD and a squad was sent. It turned out he was a off duty security guard from Security Personal Inc (SPI). He was arrested and taken to the station in handcuffs.

Thats just one story. I've even had a security guard try to pull me over on the highway while waving a badge out of his vehicle window. Thats another intresting story.

Most security companies hire unskilled, and too often hot-dog wannbe people and pay them low sub-standard wages and they get what they pay for. Until companies are willing to pay better wages and benifits, they will keep attracting a lower standard of personal.

[N. A. Corbier]

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Schmitt guard with a badge and patches that say "Schmitt Security Police" who are so untrained they refuse to do anything. As I noted before, there was one at the festival I went to. No radio, no cell phone, nothing on him to do a job. I'm not even sure why he was here, as there were about 5 huge local cops dressed like bikers with gun belts on. (If I hadn't of seen KPD badges, I'd of asked the cop working the Community Policing tent who the bikers with gun belts were. All they were wearing were muscle shirts and jeans. With body armor underneath. Hard armor.)

Wisconsin requires zero training for security personnel. Only if you are armed with a firearm are you required to be trained. The state does say you "must have certifications to carry weapons" (baton, etc), but these are gotten from private instructors.

As far as anybody trying to tin me, they had best pray their badge says something that matters to me. Unless they're performing duties, I too take it as impersonating a LEO, and immediately jump to the (reasonable) conclusion my safety is in danger and respond accordingly.

[N. A. Corbier]

Its a money making scheme for your local government..

Dont mean to be so synical, but there is truth behind the statement made by Mr. Security. I find that even those that are licensed can act as badly as those who arent. I dont agree with licensing, but instead would rather see a national and state certification process being enforced.

So would quite a few. The problem, of course, is that the national companies believe there should be no "mandated training," because "a security guard at a construction site doesn't need to be trained, really." (USA Today has done several articles on this already.)

[Mr. Security]

Good comments from both sides on this matter. I am all for mandatory background checks, but the licensing for my type of security is basically a knee-jerk response to 9/11. It doesn't ensure competent guards because the training/testing is watered down so that unqualified individuals can still get a license. Otherwise, many WBS security companies would be forced to hire higher caliber guards, which means paying more; something they will not do.

[N. A. Corbier]

Licensing, as I understand it, never was to create a "higher caliber of guard." It was to prevent the terrorists from getting into our security services. In the War On Terror, the public police are the "front line," and only quietly and without fanfare are private security referred to even being on the same battlefield.

A "license" in WI is sending 95 bucks to the state and filling out a form that asks if you're a felon or not. No training is required, all it really does is create a framework for security guard registration at the state level, instead of local.

[Mr. Security]

Licensing, as I understand it, never was to create a "higher caliber of guard." It was to prevent the terrorists from getting into our security services. In the War On Terror, the public police are the "front line," and only quietly and without fanfare are private security referred to even being on the same battlefield.

A "license" in WI is sending 95 bucks to the state and filling out a form that asks if you're a felon or not. No training is required, all it really does is create a framework for security guard registration at the state level, instead of local.

One would think that's what that background check is for?

[N. A. Corbier]

One would think that's what that background check is for?

It is, but you need to enact laws to "license" and "register" security guards to get the FBI background check. Oh, did I mention that.. it's a great money maker for the state?

The state doesn't want security companies doing the background check themselves, cause... You'll lie about it and hire illegals or terrorists or chicken wranglers.