Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police and Private Security working together for a change!

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

  • Lawson
    replied
    Okay, so to me it looks like that law needs to show intent to be able to put guards at these types of facilities. So if we are trying to professionalize security as a whole, you can look forward to proprietary security making that increasingly difficult, because something tells me that my company is not going to want to put me out at a nuke site any time soon.

    Then you have all these minor security companies that would never in a bizzillionite years be able to handle the security demands of a critical infrastructure. If I was a judge and someone told me they couldnt get hired as an S/O because they refused to take a poly from some company that isnt even licensed to have armed security, I would have their case hold water.

    I would assume that if that provision was more rock solid, a lot more places would already be polygraphing.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    Most security is covered under the Polygraph Protection Act. The only S/Os that can be polygraphed are Government hired and contracted S/Os and S/Os that are expected to guard critical infrastructures suchs as power facilities, water refineries, dams, etc... And Armored Car guards. Your average Guard who works the overnight shift in the Pepsi Warehouse is protected from polygraphs.
    I quote from Protective Security Law, 2nd Edition - Inbau, Farber and Arnold:

    "With respect to nongovernmental private employers, exceptions are made for those whose primary business purpose consists of providing security systems or services, and whose functions include protection of public transportation, facilities such as electric or nuclear power plants, authorized drug manufacturers, suppliers, and dispensers of controlled substances."

    Any security company, which obviously cannot be expected to know in advance who its future clients will be when hiring employees (who then may be assigned to any such facilities), can easily meet this requirement and it only requires knowledgeable corporate counsel to clear any hurdles in this respect.

    I am personally familiar with two companies that polygraph all officer candidates once they have met all other threshold job requirements (to save money by testing only those who are most likely to be hired, obviously). In one case, their corporate counsel advised them to bid on relevant contracts, and in another the counsel advised the company to declare its intentions in an executive policy statement to provide security in all venues, including high-risk and critical infrastructure industries. A second executive policy was then derived from the first, stating that in keeping with the company's strategic objectives, polygraph testing would be done of any officer candidate who might be assigned to such facilities...meaning, of course, ALL candidates. Only one officer candidate at one of the companies that I know of tried to challenge the test - and couldn't even get a case started.

    Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom, it's done. This is post-9/11. I learned a long time ago the value of finding a lawyer who will figure out how you CAN do the things you need to do instead of hiring one of the jillions of lousy attorneys who can only tell you all of the terrible, frightening reasons that you can't or shouldn't do almost anything.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-03-2007, 09:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    (Security is exempt from the Federal law that prohibits the use of polygraphs for hiring purposes in most other industries.)
    .
    Most security is covered under the Polygraph Protection Act. The only S/Os that can be polygraphed are Government hired and contracted S/Os and S/Os that are expected to guard critical infrastructures suchs as power facilities, water refineries, dams, etc... And Armored Car guards. Your average Guard who works the overnight shift in the Pepsi Warehouse is protected from polygraphs.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Valor Eastbay
    i would think security and police would get along very well in general if security officers had to go through true backgrounds and testing like policemen do. i myself would only trust so little at my own job.
    Yes. Here is a 10-point hiring standard:

    1. Background checks with no convictions for any felony of any kind, or for any misdemeanor involving violence, weapons, drugs, theft, vandalism to property or moral turpitude. Felony arrests "bargained down" to misdemeanors would count as felony convictions.
    2. Psychological testing, especially looking for candidates who may have sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies.
    3. No illicit drug use in the past 10 years.
    4. "Integrity" testing or polygraph where state law permits. (Security is exempt from the Federal law that prohibits the use of polygraphs for hiring purposes in most other industries.)
    5. Satisfactory personal references (3) and neighborhood survey.
    6. Physical fitness standards appropriate to job requirements, which specifically must include the ability to complete mandatory self-defense training. This job requirement can then be translated into minimum fitness standards and the medical exam appropriate for that training.
    7. Good driving record - not more than 2 moving violations in past 3 years with no reckless or DUI. Even if an officer is not expected to drive at the time he is hired, you never know. Plus, the driving record tells a lot about a person.
    8. No "credit skips" (which is not the same thing as minor credit problems) and no dishonored child support orders. Security officers with significant financial problems and those who don't honor their financial obligations are high-risk candidates for positions of trust.
    9. No unexplained/unverified gaps in employment history with satisfactory work record.
    10. High school graduation mandatory; some college preferred.

    Nate - maybe one of the first big things your organization could do would be to develop and officially adopt a set of recommended hiring and training standards. These could be promoted by public awareness campaigns. They could also be promoted to security company management and owners as a "competitive advantage" for companies that adopt the standards. Finally, they could be promoted to the state legislatures in the form of a proposed bill to raise the statutory minimums for security officer licensing.

    I know some say that you can't promote high standards in a low-paying industry. On the other hand, it will ALWAYS BE a low-paying industry if we don't develop higher standards. It's a chicken-and-the-egg problem, and with problems like that you just have to start somewhere and it usually doesn't matter which end you tackle first. IMHO, it's time we broke the egg, and it looks like it's going to have to start with demands from security officers for higher standards, knowing that this will ultimately lead to improved training, and improved training will lead to higher compensation. Higher compensation will turn around and benefit the company in the form of lower turnover. The whole industry will also benefit in many economic and other ways from improved respect and trust.

    Never buy into the myth that security "can't do any better". A lot of observers thought the same thing about law enforcement a few short decades ago. We forget that it wasn't that long ago that the hiring and training standards for many police agencies were very low, and there were many stories about finding convicted felons, people with false backgrounds, etc. in police departments, just as there have been about finding them in security agencies. Action at the federal level was instrumental in changing things in LE. Since we don't have any real hope of the same thing happening for our industry, we must do it ourselves.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-03-2007, 07:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Valor Eastbay
    replied
    i would think security and police would get along very well in general if security officers had to go through true backgrounds and testing like policemen do. i myself would only trust so little at my own job.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Here's a site I came across that I never thought I would see http://www.tapps.org/portal/SmartDefault.aspx
    '
    Yeah, this isn't a surprise to me as there is a similar association in Baltimore County, Maryland. It's Called the Baltimore County Police and Private Security Association (www.bcppsa.org).

    There is also COPS which stands for Community Oriented Policing Services, which a policy in 2004, in regards to the partnership of the public and private sector.
    Last edited by BadBoynMD; 03-03-2007, 03:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Police and Private Security working together for a change!

    Here's a site I came across that I never thought I would see http://www.tapps.org/portal/SmartDefault.aspx

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X