A philisophical debate, if anybody is up for it. I exclude contract security from this, because they are obligated to provide guards - otherwise, they can't bill the client and lose money. As an in house department, we have a minimum staffing level, which we've had to be on for several times due to COVID, the labor shortage, etc. We are now in a position where we can, for the most part, staff all our shifts properly.
Like all departments, we have a certain amount of dead wood. It may be a fine line, but my take is that if a guard is so lazy or incompetent (or both) that someone else has to do their work too, the lazy guard should be let go. I think certain guards are a liability - the bad guys are watching too, and if they know a guard isn't doing his patrols, or does them in a way that you know exactly where he's going to be, when he's going to be on break, etc. then you are inviting crime rather than deterring it.
I get that it may be better to have a warm body than nobody, but I'd rather work a shift with one less guard and do the extra work, than spend eight hours with dead weight earning a paycheck for breathing.
Like all departments, we have a certain amount of dead wood. It may be a fine line, but my take is that if a guard is so lazy or incompetent (or both) that someone else has to do their work too, the lazy guard should be let go. I think certain guards are a liability - the bad guys are watching too, and if they know a guard isn't doing his patrols, or does them in a way that you know exactly where he's going to be, when he's going to be on break, etc. then you are inviting crime rather than deterring it.
I get that it may be better to have a warm body than nobody, but I'd rather work a shift with one less guard and do the extra work, than spend eight hours with dead weight earning a paycheck for breathing.
Comment