Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security Guard License

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

  • UtahProtectionForce
    replied
    dsoul

    Your welcome!

    Leave a comment:


  • dsoul27
    replied
    thanks guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • UtahProtectionForce
    replied
    Originally posted by dsoul27 View Post
    does anyone know what happens if you move to another state? Could you keep your license and permits or would have to go through whatever the process is for that state?
    typically you have to be licensed under the new state... such as my cali card was no good in utah, my utah card will be no good in new mexico when i move there

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by dsoul27 View Post
    does anyone know what happens if you move to another state? Could you keep your license and permits or would have to go through whatever the process is for that state?
    VERY few companies allow reciprocity. And even then, its usually temporary. You get to go through the whole thing again. My Florida license was worthless in Wisconsin, and with some employers, seen as a liability since I had over 70 whole hours of training, while their guards get zero hours of training.

    Leave a comment:


  • dsoul27
    replied
    does anyone know what happens if you move to another state? Could you keep your license and permits or would have to go through whatever the process is for that state?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by UtahProtectionForce View Post
    around 2001 when i got my California Guard Card, there was this company which eventually got bought out by ABM, well this company gave the test open book, it was supposed to be closed book, this company would if you failed take your test, and "re-mark" it for you so that you would pass, if they thought you were a good canidate, i think that they should make getting your guard card, done by some one else other then the hiring companies.
    Won't change it. Companies can't give out the D course, only "schools" can. So, they just certify another DBA as a school with the school license, and either give the test themselves, or they lean on other school companies to do it.

    "I'm sending you 20 new hires. I need 20 guards back."

    Leave a comment:


  • UtahProtectionForce
    replied
    around 2001 when i got my California Guard Card, there was this company which eventually got bought out by ABM, well this company gave the test open book, it was supposed to be closed book, this company would if you failed take your test, and "re-mark" it for you so that you would pass, if they thought you were a good canidate, i think that they should make getting your guard card, done by some one else other then the hiring companies.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Most of these licenses are not to be "skilled" or anything. Its to provide a level of accountability to the people, through the government, for an industry that "people" believe is full of undesirables. Yet, of course, they want these people guarding their stuff, and sometimes themselves.

    Keep in mind that the people who make your food in a fast food place must also be "licensed" or "certified" and also make low wages. Different licensing board, of course. Ok, they still make more than the average security guard, but still.

    The states are not trying to teach anything, here in the US, with a firearms license. They're measuring minimum qualifications for carrying a device designed to take human life. All they want to know is:

    Do you know when NOT to shoot?
    Will you hit the target when you shoot?
    Are you a felon or have other disqualifies?

    That's ALL they need to know. Tacticool shooting courses and that are beyond the scope of minimum qualification, simply because the state recognizes that most companies don't want their people trained in firearms handling or marksmanship.

    Think about it. Did the state require marksmanship training, or simply assessment?

    Leave a comment:


  • geordiekimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by geordiekimbo View Post
    Well i don't know about the rest of the world but in England the new SIA license requirement is a complete joke. And i have voiced my views on this from the start.

    The company pay for you to take the course, which at the time i took it was about £190 ($350 maybe) which you were told you would pay back to the company if you left the company.

    All well and good, but i was under the impression that the SIA license wouldweed out the chaff - like it is supposed to do in all the paper promises. But when you sit through a three week course like a good boy and do all your homework and get marked on your test and get 100% i think its a little bit unfair that some people who blatantly fail the test are then HELPED through the whole thing in order that they acheive a pass grade.

    Imagine my surprise when i hear of another officer who not only failed the proper test, but could not pass when helped either. This particular individual was essentially told to sign a blank test paper and told he had passed. I've heard of others who've had the same thing done to them.

    What kind of advertisement for a supposed improvement is that? So like I said, it a complete joke. No wonder the security industry is looked on in england the way it is. It pains me to say that i'm tarred with the same brush as those people. The only thing that the SIA license has enforced IMHO is it holds you to ransom with the company who paid to put you through the test. You pay to leave the company, when the time comes.

    If i wasn't so frustrated i swear i'd probably die crying.
    Oh yeah and I forgot to mention no increase in hourly rate to take into account the aleged "semi-skilled" nature of a job with a license.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bern Wheaton
    replied
    Either way you have to take the test and pay out money each year for your lic. Also for your arm lic. you got to take it. I had a buddy that had to take it to go to a navy island but he failed ,becuase he didnt understand the test ,he was to honest. I found out the arms test is mainly they want to know if your a loner or not if you are you fail every time if your a out going person you will pass it everytime. So i told him to lie on the test that he was a out going happy guy when he did he past the test.

    it is sad that they even do test becuase half the guys you get working with you ,you really dont want them as partners or your afraid they will shoot you in the back! Or they will not back you up and you have a better chance by yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • geordiekimbo
    replied
    Well i don't know about the rest of the world but in England the new SIA license requirement is a complete joke. And i have voiced my views on this from the start.

    The company pay for you to take the course, which at the time i took it was about £190 ($350 maybe) which you were told you would pay back to the company if you left the company.

    All well and good, but i was under the impression that the SIA license wouldweed out the chaff - like it is supposed to do in all the paper promises. But when you sit through a three week course like a good boy and do all your homework and get marked on your test and get 100% i think its a little bit unfair that some people who blatantly fail the test are then HELPED through the whole thing in order that they acheive a pass grade.

    Imagine my surprise when i hear of another officer who not only failed the proper test, but could not pass when helped either. This particular individual was essentially told to sign a blank test paper and told he had passed. I've heard of others who've had the same thing done to them.

    What kind of advertisement for a supposed improvement is that? So like I said, it a complete joke. No wonder the security industry is looked on in england the way it is. It pains me to say that i'm tarred with the same brush as those people. The only thing that the SIA license has enforced IMHO is it holds you to ransom with the company who paid to put you through the test. You pay to leave the company, when the time comes.

    If i wasn't so frustrated i swear i'd probably die crying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    Originally posted by FederalSecurity View Post
    I'm quite impressed by the process that Australia has! Is the process that

    stringent in all of the states? How hard is it to become a Police Officer?

    If we in the United States had even half of that process, I think the Security

    profession would not be as frowned upon by the general public as it is now.
    I was of the belief that Victoria was pretty stringent also after the Victorian Security Officer requirements were redefined (following incidents in nightclubs 3 or so years ago), requiring all operatives to obtain a Certificate III in Security Operations PRS 301103 (including R.S.A. & Workplace First Aid Level II)

    Due to the altering industry standards I ended up completing the above certificate directly after I finished the older Certficate II, so I spent around 120 hours all up, providing me with accreditiation for work as either a Crowd Controller or Security Guard/Officer

    Our licensing period is only for 3 years and is controlled by the Licensing Services Division of the Victoria Police (or LSD), which envolves 2 character references (from professionals Doctor's etc.) and a Police records check, LSD also defines the period of competancy duration...

    I should also point out at this juncture, that the RTO's (licenced by LSD) are also empowered somewhat to help remove undesirable employees through written disapproval recommendations for licensing made to LSD.

    Due to our current Police Commissioner's vision for the future of the Police in Victoria, some physical requirements have been altered/removed to encourage a better gender balance within the force, AFAIK height restrictions have also been lowered to some extent also
    Last edited by Maelstrom; 07-23-2007, 05:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankW438
    replied
    I am absolutely in favor of state licensing and at least a minimal level of mandated training. Illinois requires 20 hours training, and fingerprint processing before they will issue the Permanent Employee Registration Card (PERC). It's another 20 hours and range qualification for a Firearms Authorization Card (FAC). Even though this is more training than many states require, I think it is minimal, even for O&R duties.

    I do not believe there should be a national license or national certification for private security persons. That right should remain with the states. However, I do believe there should be some minimal accepted standards for states to base reciprocity agreements, such as we have with driver's licenses and CCW permits, and certain other professional licenses.

    As far as additional training requirements, can you really ever have enough training? In this cut-throat bottom-bid industry, training is always lacking. GOOD training is even harder to come by. Unless you're working on a government contract or in a government-regulated industry, it will be very hard to find a client willing to pay for additional training. Many of them feel that it is the security contractor's responsibility to provide training out of their budget. A client knows if they require the contractor to provide any type of training, they will have to pay for it. It's much more cost-effective to forgo additional training and blame any problems on the security contractor's lack of training and poor hiring practices.

    After all, isn't that why they hire contract security? To minimize their liability and have a scapegoat they can dump the blame on?



    -- Frank

    Leave a comment:


  • ValleyOne
    replied
    Money. Money. Money.

    Those are the three reasons for the current level of training required to be certified in Oregon. They are also the reasons for said training to be held in the minimalistic arena. Companies will argue they can't afford to pay more than what they do. Money is also the revenue generating source for the state, granted it's not much-but it does pay for the staff to be self sufficient.

    I strongly feel that if the state wants to actually improve the standards of the security officers they would actively pursue that avenue. I emailed the DPSST/Private Security Div. Director and asked about more training, specifically for the Taser. Here's what I got back;

    DPSST's training programs for private security personnel are
    designed to provide applicants with basic and necessary skills
    prior to
    beginning work as either an unarmed or armed security officer. We do not
    at this time provide training programs specific to the weapons you
    mentioned. We would typically refer constituents back to the
    manufacturer or to the NRA for training opportunities.
    If there was a real and tangible effort to improve the training of security officers in my state, or others, I feel there would be Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels of certification. For instance, in my state a Police Officer goes to the Academy (DPSST) and upon graduation he/she has earned their Basic Certification. They have the ability to achieve a higher level of certification (Intermediate and Advanced) via more training. Granted their dept. typically pays for it, as it will obviously improve said dept. But, on the Security side of the same state agency, DPSST, there is none. Training is within reach, but no one has the money to pay for it, we don't have a dept with a big training budget. Not to bash on the state to much, they do offer up some free training to us, it's just way too sporactic.

    As an indsutry we have handicapped ourselves in this arena. Most companies will step over their own mother to under bid a competitor. By doing this said companies are shoot themselves in the foot as they will be making less and less per account and will defintely have zero money to improve their Officers and corporate image.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric
    replied
    Originally posted by bigshotceo View Post
    While we might want to have different "levels", there's nothing preventing a client from hiring the lowest level regardless of the situation.
    And that seems to be a block in our path towards some uniformity of acceptable base standards within our industry.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X