Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police and Private Security working together for a change!

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

  • theconstipated1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    That’s akin to having the fox guard the chicken coup.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishCop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by wilrobnson
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by tlangsr
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • tlangsr
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingsman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    10 Point System

    I thought that was the number of points I needed on my driver's license.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    I might not have been clear. I didn't say anything about "military" fitness or rapelling down walls. The fitness level I referred to was one that would be appropriate for taking (and passing) a mandatory course in basic self-defense. For some positions, having the endurance to handle at least a brief foot pursuit would also be desirable.

    Foot pursuit aside, surely you don't think that a standard requiring the officer to be physically capable of defending himself would be unreasonable? You do mention unarmed defense in your list of suggested requirements, but in my experience too often this sort of training is wasted on people who don't have the basic level of fitness or strength (which need not be all that great!) to take advantage of the techniques that are taught. This is all because someone didn't establish a fitness requirement appropriate for that kind of training.

    Other aspects of the fitness requirement would address things like the minimum requirements for (corrected) vision, hearing, etc. that the average officer would be expected to have to do his job properly, and I would assume that there couldn't be any objection to those, either.
    To me, doing ones "homework" in regards to our industry is extremely vital. I often ask fellow security officers about specific laws, and they are clueless. Sad part is, it's laws on what we as security officers can and can't do on the job. I have to agree with SecTrainer in regards to being physically fit to a point where one can defend him/herself. I've spoke with a police officer that stated that the reason he dislikes security officers is because;

    1. Most security officers aren't trained at all. (Maryland doesnt require any training for security officers, not even CPR)
    2. IF the S--- hits the fan, they not only have to worry about themselves, but the security officer also. So, on this point, if a security officer isnt "fit" enough to get the HELL out of dodge, he is only endangering himself and others.
    3. They have no clue about the background, training, mental state of that security officer. I've always shook my head at the hiring standards of most security companies. If you need a job, just go to a security company, most will hire you before you leave. Sad, but true.

    A majority of SecTrainer's 10-point system is actually written in my companies policy manual. I call it the company Bible, it's about 65 pages long (and I am still writing it) and details just about EVERY policy that all companies should have. Everything from how a memo should be written up to Use of Force...

    Leave a comment:


  • Qarlo X64
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    I might not have been clear. I didn't say anything about "military" fitness or rapelling down walls. The fitness level I referred to was one that would be appropriate for taking (and passing) a mandatory course in basic self-defense. For some positions, having the endurance to handle at least a brief foot pursuit would also be desirable.

    Foot pursuit aside, surely you don't think that a standard requiring the officer to be physically capable of defending himself would be unreasonable? You do mention unarmed defense in your list of suggested requirements, but in my experience too often this sort of training is wasted on people who don't have the basic level of fitness or strength (which need not be all that great!) to take advantage of the techniques that are taught. This is all because someone didn't establish a fitness requirement appropriate for that kind of training.

    Other aspects of the fitness requirement would address things like the minimum requirements for (corrected) vision, hearing, etc. that the average officer would be expected to have to do his job properly, and I would assume that there couldn't be any objection to those, either.
    I stand corrected sir, and it's my bad. I read "Physical Fitness" and automatically get the world's misconception of that description in my head whereas a lot of ppl get the shaft for no good reason. After having reread your post on that I see you didn't specify to what degree. I apologize on my part for the mistake. I just take things like this a bit personal is all, I myself am not phsyically fit but I'm not unfit either. I'm naturally built like a tank at 5-10 and do problems with IBS have suffered with a slight bloat (in other words a slight beer gut, even though I don't drink or smoke.) that no matter how often I work out or even do ab excersizes it doesn't seem to go away. A lot of ppl get the misconception that that somehow makes me "unfit" and they couldn't be more wrong. I can run (and have) with the best of them, and I guess I'm from the old school belief, "If one has the desire to win, they'll overcome, adapt and conquer" rather than a set standard across the board that often times disqualifies people who have a natural gravitation to a particular something (in this case "Security") or manner of thinking that should be further cultivated and utilized.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    I might not have been clear. I didn't say anything about "military" fitness or rapelling down walls. The fitness level I referred to was one that would be appropriate for taking (and passing) a mandatory course in basic self-defense. For some positions, having the endurance to handle at least a brief foot pursuit would also be desirable.

    Foot pursuit aside, surely you don't think that a standard requiring the officer to be physically capable of defending himself would be unreasonable? You do mention unarmed defense in your list of suggested requirements, but in my experience too often this sort of training is wasted on people who don't have the basic level of fitness or strength (which need not be all that great!) to take advantage of the techniques that are taught. This is all because someone didn't establish a fitness requirement appropriate for that kind of training.

    Other aspects of the fitness requirement would address things like the minimum requirements for (corrected) vision, hearing, etc. that the average officer would be expected to have to do his job properly, and I would assume that there couldn't be any objection to those, either.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-03-2007, 11:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qarlo X64
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    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.
    I agree with what you have posted on that 10-Point hiring standard, but I not on all points. I do feel that there should be a lot more to hiring people and fielding them. I've always been of the belief that both LV III personnel and non LV III personnel should get at least 80hrs of intensive training in all fields. Even those not old enough to be commissioned would have already undergone the proper training with firearms, but they're in a holding pattern until they reach the age of 21. The training would include the areas of Ethics, Command Presense w. understanding of SPD [Suggestive Psychological Deterrency], Report Writing, First Aid & CPR Certification, Unarmed Defensive Tactics, Basic Shooting with *proper* Combat Shooting Qualifications... Proper usage of Hand Cuffing. This way the people who really don't want to be there will just duck out at some point during all of this.

    Where I disagree with you is the part about "having to phsyically fit". I think one should be fit enough, but not neccessarily to some kind of soldierly status. I say this because it's hard enough out there in the world for many to even get proper employment, and that's being a law abiding citizen and not a felon and playing by the rules so to speak. I feel that if the applicant has the "desire" to want to get the neccessary training (the mental part) and can prove capable in the phsyical area, [I mean after all most PSOs aren't going to be scaling walls or repelling down the sides of buildings] then that should be enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    I understand what you're saying, and it's not without merit logically and perhaps even on moral grounds of corporate honesty. Legally, however, logic and honesty rarely come into the debate (which is rather sad). EPPA is enforced by the DOL, which has shown very little interest in pursuing the complaints brought by candidates for security positions who did not want to take polygraph exams, at least in the relatively few cases that I know about. The company I mentioned in my earlier post DID receive a call from the DOL when the officer filed his complaint, but on receiving faxed copies of the company's executive policy statements that I mentioned the DOL declined to take any further action.

    When Congress passed EPPA and charged DOL with its enforcement, it did not then, and never has, appropriated funds for the enforcement. Hence, the DOL has never been terribly vigorous in this regard anyway, and tends to focus what enforcement efforts it does make on the situations where the employer obviously has NO exemptions under EPPA.

    So, it's possible that, as with many areas of federal enforcement, the agency is forced to pick and choose cases it believes it can win. This is what the EEOC does, for instance. Each year, EEOC declares its priorities for enforcement and blatantly states that it will only focus on cases where it believes it has a reasonable chance of a favorable ruling from the courts, or cases that have universal applicability in terms of policy enforcement. In short, the EEOC effectively declines to take cases where it would be "tilting at windmills". This is contrary to the popular opinion that all anyone has to do is file a complaint of any sort and here come the Feds, riding to the rescue.

    It would be very difficult for DOL to make a case against a security company that declared its intention to provide security to (this is a rough quote) "public and private entities, including those in federally-designated critical infrastructure industries" and thereby established its need to know - in advance - that its employees would be able to meet the personnel standards inherent in such contracts. It cannot be expected to be placed in a position where it can only find out after being awarded a contract that its employees cannot fulfill its terms. The company would also then be placed in the untenable position of committing real violations of EPPA provisions if it tried to go back and polygraph its current employees - which CANNOT be done by any private entity, and which probably WOULD be enforced by DOL. The security company would be in legal no-man's-land because it could not even bid on many such jobs if it did not meet pre-bidding standards with respect to its capability of handling the contract.

    I also doubt seriously that DOL would ever undertake to try to decide whether a particular security company was "likely" to be awarded such contracts. Many such contracts are actually fairly small, such as the security of a single city government facility. More to the point, this would effectively amount to prior restraint of trade, as bidding would then effectively be limited only to those companies that already have such contracts (because by such interpretation the company would have already had to justify the polygraph exemption - which creates the equivalent of a legal oxymoron).

    Finally, it is the broader policy of the federal government to encourage the growth of small businesses, and time after time various federal agencies that have taken actions that favor larger companies have been set aside by the courts in order to enforce the broader policy considerations.

    As to the idea that the provision isn't solid because more companies aren't using polygraphs, I don't think so. First, there is the common idea that they can't, and they don't even check to see if they can. Second, there is the cost. We're talking about lots of companies out there that barely even check the public criminal records, let alone anything else, because they think it costs too much to do even a basic background check. They do the bare minimum to "get by". You could repeal EPPA completely tomorrow, and they still wouldn't use polygraphs (or most other forms of screening like psychological tests, either).

    As I've often said before, companies like this do not seem to understand that they are shooting the whole industry in the foot by such practices...and hurting themselves in the process because it means clients won't pay more than crappy prices for what they perceive to be a no-talent, no/low-requirements, no/low-training, ill-equipped, crappy, crappy, crappy, ccccccrrrrrrrraaaaaaappppppyyyyyy security officer.

    In summary, a security company that wants to use polygraph examinations for officer screening, absent specific STATE law to the contrary, will find that it can do so if it goes about it in the proper way.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 03-03-2007, 10:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X