Police and Private Security working together for a change!

[BadBoynMD]

Lord knows I worry about some of the people I have seen hired to work for various security positions I have worked.

The company I currently work for has a much higher standard than most I have seen. Most of the officers are former or current police, others are ex-military.
All have gone thru company ordered training and a federal background check, physical, and eye exam. We also have to qualify with pistols twice a year.

We work federal contracts and that may be why we have such high standards.

my company hiring standards are:

1. Application
2. Written Test (basically to see what your knowledge of the job is)
3. Oral Board type interview, with a police officer present asking questions
4. Background investigation (consists of personal references, business references, neighborhood survey, driving record)
5. DOT Physical.. which consists of drug test, eye exam, and basic physical. Don't want someone in a patrol car that could endanger themselves and others.
6. Interview with me

Company policy states that every armed officer has to qualify on the range 3 times a year, and once a year on simulator (shoot - dont shoot)

[OccamsRazor]

I have seen Guards who are on medications that prohibit them from doing their jobs correctly, just got rid of one of them. I have also seen a guy in this industry who was convicted felon, our site supervisor was his arresting officer.

YEARS ago, I worked for a contract guard company in downtown Seattle, when they were first building the bus tunnel underneath the city. The assignment involved walking 3-9 miles per shift, and climbing several hundre steps. I was supervising at the time, and threw a guy off for sleeping an entire shift in a transit supervisor's parked truck. I called the office and asked for a replacement, and made sure they knew I needed a "fit" person due to the job.

They sent me a guy with one leg, and crutches.

Seriously.

[SecTrainer]

They sent me a guy with one leg, and crutches.

Hooboy! And the thing is, you know that there are certain jobs (even in law enforcement) where people with such handicaps and who have an interest in our field can work - dispatch, monitoring CCTV/alarm consoles, human resources, accounting/billing, data entry, etc. Putting someone into a position that is inappropriate for their physical abilities is bad management and bad business, a great source of lawsuits, and only reinforces the impression that we're a jake-leg, half-baked industry.

[IrishCop]

I note that there have been a number of critical comments on the standard of Security Guards hired by Security Companies and quite rightly so.

The old adage of 'You get what you pay for' comes to mind in this regard and it is my opinion that to rely on Security Companies to self regulate within a highly competitive industry is futile.

The regulation, training and licensing standards of those employed within the security industry should be strictly controlled by a government authority and no person should be employed as a Security Guard unless they have met the licensing standards set by that licensing authority.

I realise that many States and Provencies have such a licensing authority but not all and in many cases it is only a token gesture.

Private Security is increasingly being used in the provision of protective services to vital government departments and facilities that previously employed sworn police officers or military police and it is very important that if these officers are to replaced by private security personnel then the standards should not be reduced based on the lowest tenderer being awarded the contract and then employing itinerant workers as Security Guards.

[Mr. Security]

I note that there have been a number of critical comments on the standard of Security Guards hired by Security Companies and quite rightly so.

The old adage of 'You get what you pay for' comes to mind in this regard and it is my opinion that to rely on Security Companies to self regulate within a highly competitive industry is futile.
The regulation, training and licensing standards of those employed within the security industry should be strictly controlled by a government authority and no person should be employed as a Security Guard unless they have met the licensing standards set by that licensing authority.

I realise that many States and Provencies have such a licensing authority but not all and in many cases it is only a token gesture.

Private Security is increasingly being used in the provision of protective services to vital government departments and facilities that previously employed sworn police officers or military police and it is very important that if these officers are to replaced by private security personnel then the standards should not be reduced based on the lowest tenderer being awarded the contract and then employing itinerant workers as Security Guards.

That’s akin to having the fox guard the chicken coup.

[N. A. Corbier]

I note that there have been a number of critical comments on the standard of Security Guards hired by Security Companies and quite rightly so.

The old adage of 'You get what you pay for' comes to mind in this regard and it is my opinion that to rely on Security Companies to self regulate within a highly competitive industry is futile.

The regulation, training and licensing standards of those employed within the security industry should be strictly controlled by a government authority and no person should be employed as a Security Guard unless they have met the licensing standards set by that licensing authority.

I realise that many States and Provencies have such a licensing authority but not all and in many cases it is only a token gesture.

Private Security is increasingly being used in the provision of protective services to vital government departments and facilities that previously employed sworn police officers or military police and it is very important that if these officers are to replaced by private security personnel then the standards should not be reduced based on the lowest tenderer being awarded the contract and then employing itinerant workers as Security Guards.

The problem here is that the IASIR, a regulatory association made up of state regulators, are advocating these standards you see, like Florida's. Many states are already IASIR members, and use the boilerplate stuff that IASIR provides to be passed into laws.

So, we get consumer services organizations providing security oversight (since they're protecting the public from bad service providers), along with the "standard 40 hour course" with more training about what you can't do, more than what you should or could do.

And by "should or could do," I mean things like armed guard licensing requirements that require teaching more than:

The nomenclature of the Firearm.
The appropriate section on Lethal Force.
A standard paper target qualification.

And that's ... it. Nothing else, since after all, its a firearms license.

Training is resisted, and the state knows it, so they don't require it.

As far as requirements... Those are generally "no felonies related to security," and "no more than a few arrests related to security."

The 'golden standard' is already out there, IASIR is putting it out, and its lock-step with ASIS.

[theconstipated1]

One of the main problems is all the characters that do security who don`t know their left from their right,characters who truly believe that they are the police . Those kind of bozos give the security profession a bad name. No rspect for security. because there is alot of idiots messing it up for everybody else who carry themselves in a professional manner.