writing state legislature for increased training, what are pluses

[locknid]

well basically I am going to be writing my state legislature and anyone who matters that state mandatory training for security guards needs to be raised. I am trying to find pluses to this to make it outweigh the minuses. Anyone have any ideas to help out. so far i don't have much because of a huge brain fart but one could be increased support and knowledge sharing between police and security guards. If police depts know the training level of security, and know that it is higher, they will be more willing to share critical information, be more willing to show up for calls from security guards, and have a general higher level of respect for security guards. With increased mandatory training then security can be given more sophisticated responsibilities, also the generation of possible new legislature giving more legal authority to security guards. security companies would be able to charge more for services, thus higher pay. Guards would also gain higher pay because the amount of training and qualifications would be tougher to pass.

One of the obvious minuses would be the extra cost to security companies to train new employees. This could be alliviated by outside training companies used to train multiple companies for reduced costs. THis would create more jobs also in training guards. If training standards were higher then more companies and outlets would possibly want security if they have more faith the security will actually make a difference.

if you have anything to add or have a comment because my thinking may be flawed in some areas then let me know. I want to make this as serious as possible so thought would count.

also currently to get a state issued unarmed guard card you need 8 hours training, drug test, and background test. for any armed card it is only an additional 16 hours of training, and the background test is stricter. most guards go into their job poorly trained if they actually do get in a situation and laibility for both the contract company and the client company.

[N. A. Corbier]

You're up against a huge lobby against additional, or even any, training for security personnel. Your employer and potential employers.

Which state is this? Its nice to say, "additional training," but training in what? What is the training already given? Who decides what the training is, and what source materials are used?

A good example of this is Florida, where the only instruction you get is a bulleted list which has one phrase topics. The individual licensed security trainers who teach the course decide what those bulleted lists mean.

Example, it states you must teach First Aid. Most security schools say, "We are not teaching you first aid. That is a seperate course, which you can take here. This is only the basics to meet state requirements."

Florida requires security schools to "tell you" (I don't use the word teach, because they don't 9 times out of 10) about the dangers you will be facing.

[Bill Warnock]

Nathan, Locknid, I believe times are changing. When I first started in the police business, all I had to do was be willing to start at $4,800. a year and buy all that I needed. Training was listening and watching others, plus military training. Then came academy training mandated by the state.
Learning about private security I was given a uniform and told to report to a golfing event. Issued a .38 and ammunition. The head stamp was FA 1940. The ammunition was four years younger than I. No fingerprints or character references, just warm to the touch.
Of course that was light years ago and much has improved in some areas but not all. 9/11 changed all of that.
Any attempt to get more training is worth the effort. Look at the police, badge and gun, wanting to work.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[locknid]

The state is AZ. pretty much training is 8 hours usually in-house by companies, many request only applicants who already have the guard card to reduce training costs. to my knowledge there is no mandatory information which needs to be taught.

to obtain an armed guard card an additional 16 hours of training is needed plus the background check is more strict. As far as I know there is some mandatory information which must be taught during the 16 hours, after that the instructor may teach whatever they want.

in this state the unarmed training is usually in-house and cost effective for big companies as they usually have multiple people going through the training at once, possibly using a max of one employee to do the training.

Its nice to say, "additional training," but training in what? What is the training already given? Who decides what the training is, and what source materials are used?

well that is one thing I am still looking into, and I dont know how specific I want to get. To me several things need to be taught which I definitly was not at first, and I know many others are not either.

-private person arrest/detain laws/handcuffing
-use of force laws/defensive techniques
-ARS codes which are relevant to the guard's work
-??????

those seem to be the biggest thing which police complain about and to me are critical to a guard's duty.

if not more hours in training then more specific guidelines, plenty can be covered in 8 hours but is usually not.

I think if done correctly when adding training, or stricter guidelines on training, can be just as cost effective as the old standards.

[Chucky]

Not sure that would work in any state that has a powerful police union. I read that the Guardian Angels from NY are going to Boston to help with the soring murder rate. The first folks to complain and tell them to stay away was the Boston Police Union. The BPD Union said that they want 150 more cops on the streets. So IMO they would fight any thing that would jeopardise more cops on the street as in trained security guys could eventually become in a pinch.

The same article told about the 8 LTs on the State Police that made 3 figure salaries . One LT made $283.000 last year in details. They are not going to allow anything perceived or real stop that fleecing of the tax payers. Every state in the union uses flag people at moderate pay to do the same thing these cops do except flag people actually work for their money as the cops sit in their cruisers the whole shift.

When Romney was running for Ma Governor that was a main issue that he was going to make a change in. After he was elected you never heard any more about it. I'm sure the Police Union blew in his ear. NY does have all security guys licenced. I would suggest you find out how they did it and see what that brings.

[SecTrainer]

I would approach this by asking the question: What are the reasons for improved/increased training? Move this away from trying to equate "pluses" with "minuses", which is an equation that will always depend on someone's definition of the variables and the numbers they attach to them. If the reasons are inherently overpowering, the need for the equation disappears.

1. Society benefits in many economic ways when it is safer. We know, for instance, that a safer work environment brings many benefits to a company, such as:

a. Higher employee retention.
b. Higher employee morale and productivity.
c. Lower numbers of claims (workers comp, etc.) by employees for injuries and other adverse events at work.
d. Greater customer loyalty; longer "average time in store".
e. Less internal and external loss from theft, pilferage, fire and other adverse events.
f. Enhanced ability of the company to move into global markets.

What the exact "numbers" of all of the above might be would vary widely from company to company, obviously, but ALL companies would realize some or all of the benefits above from a safer workplace.

Other economic benefits include higher rents and lower vacancy rates for income properties such as office buildings, apartments, etc., compared with those that are less safe. This is quite significant because the annual rent income is MULTIPLIED by a factor as high as 20 or more (depending on the region and the type of property) to determine the value of a property, so $1000 increased rent per month can increase the value of a single property by $1000 x 12 x 20, or $240,000. If you have a 300-unit apartment complex that is safe and can command even just $25 more a month per unit than one that is less safe, you're talking about a very real economic input to the community of 300 x 25 x 12 x 20 or $1.8 million increase in the income-based value of the property.

The same is true of properties such as motels and hotels, although the math is a little more complicated.

In condos and "owned-property" communities, people want to move to safe neighborhoods, not unsafe ones, and will obviously pay more to live in such neighborhoods...so that property values rise. Again, the exact numbers are not important.

In retail stores, things cost less when the store does not have to recover higher losses from theft, and other operating expenses.

2. The culture is changing and becoming more and more diverse. Officers who are better trained in the cultural aspects of society as they relate to their job will provide a higher level of service to the people of different cultures that they encounter. (Not to be cynical, but remember that LEGISLATORS LOVE ANYTHING THAT ADVANCES OR BENEFITS "DIVERSITY"!!)

3. The technological advancements in the field of security are accelerating. More and more, officers must interface with complex systems such as access control, alarms, lock systems, monitoring, and information applications (databases, etc.).

4. The safety environment is becoming more, not less, complex. We have more and more hazardous materials moving through and around secured spaces, for instance.

5. The crime environment is becoming more, not less, complex, and privacy is becoming more and more difficult to safeguard against sophisticated criminals and fraudsters.

6. The legal environment is becoming more, not less, complex. New theories of liability, such as "inadequate supervision" have joined the older, more established causes of action.

7. The public and private protection domains are increasingly seeking to work cooperatively in areas of mutual concern. Such cooperation is best obtained in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and mutual respect requires that each domain must be recognizably competent in the eyes of the other. There is nothing that obstructs cooperation between two individuals or two groups more than disdain and disrespect of one for the other.

The list goes on, but this will get you started. Then, from the list of reasons for increased training, you can also surmise the kind of training that each reason implies. For instance, item #4 above implies the need for basic awareness-level hazmat training.

Good luck - and don't buy into the pessimistic attitude of "poor widdle us...we just can't fight the mean old security company owners." How pathetic is that!?!

[Chucky]

After reading all 688 words or 4340 characters in your post I was with you until the last sentence. I don't think anyone blames the security company owners for the way things are. Believe it or not most of them are not getting rich owning a company. The incentive for them to charge more for trained guards has to come as a whole. Other wise they may as well just close their doors. As everyone knows the bottom line dictates success or failure in the business world.

Good luck - and don't buy into the pessimistic attitude of "poor widdle us...we just can't fight the mean old security company owners." How pathetic is that!?!

[Mr. Security]

Training

We need more training in dealing with scenarios involving confrontations and situations likely to lead to a physical altercation if not managed properly. Too often wrong decisions are made by the security officer that result in some of the videos we see posted at this site.

[SecTrainer]

I don't think anyone blames the security company owners for the way things are. Believe it or not most of them are not getting rich owning a company.

Then you haven't been reading the posts by those who claim that it's the security companies (or associations representing them) that are the ones lobbying against higher training standards whenever the subject comes before the state legislatures, or opposing requests for training within their own companies. Check out the post immediately below this one, for instance.

[DMS 525]

Most of us have known for years security personnel need better training that what they get now.

The company I gave all I had for almost 4 years just to get dropped on my bum: I outlined a basic training course, which would cover 20 hours 4 hours a day for 5 days. It would cover everything the average security officer needed to know, such as report writing, first aid, identifying hazards, radio usage, proper wearing of the uniform(three inspections would be held during training), basic self defense & baton training, and a little handcuffing, and so much more. Orientation films would be shown, and copies of written policies would be handed out. A pop quiz would be given in mid week, and a final exam would be given the last day. I even offered to be the primary instructor for the course.
All I got for all of that was a lot of blah blah blah, the money the money the money! I pointedly asked how hard would something like that hit a company who can afford a Lear jet and other bells and whistles? All they wanted was warm bodies they could pay minumum wage to, but sure wanted to jump all over my ass when something went wrong on a guard account. I had been complaining for a long time that too many guards were getting turned loose not knowing what they were supposed to be doing. Major liability.

It's a long, uphill climb, but I see states getting tougher on their standards in the next 10 years or so.

[Mr. Security]

Most of us have known for years security personnel need better training that what they get now.

The company I gave all I had for almost 4 years just to get dropped on my bum: I outlined a basic training course, which would cover 20 hours 4 hours a day for 5 days. It would cover everything the average security officer needed to know, such as report writing, first aid, identifying hazards, radio usage, proper wearing of the uniform(three inspections would be held during training), basic self defense & baton training, and a little handcuffing, and so much more. Orientation films would be shown, and copies of written policies would be handed out. A pop quiz would be given in mid week, and a final exam would be given the last day. I even offered to be the primary instructor for the course.
All I got for all of that was a lot of blah blah blah, the money the money the money! I pointedly asked how hard would something like that hit a company who can afford a Lear jet and other bells and whistles? All they wanted was warm bodies they could pay minumum wage to, but sure wanted to jump all over my ass when something went wrong on a guard account. I had been complaining for a long time that too many guards were getting turned loose not knowing what they were supposed to be doing. Major liability.

It's a long, uphill climb, but I see states getting tougher on their standards in the next 10 years or so.

Many security companies are all about profits first, security second. Account managers are better at sales than managing security people and providing quality security services. I would like to see each state audit its security providers to ensure compliance with regulations. Resources usually will not allow for this. Perhaps it could be contracted out to a private firm.

[tlangsr]

well basically I am going to be writing my state legislature and anyone who matters that state mandatory training for security guards needs to be raised. I am trying to find pluses to this to make it outweigh the minuses. Anyone have any ideas to help out. so far i don't have much because of a huge brain fart but one could be increased support and knowledge sharing between police and security guards. If police depts know the training level of security, and know that it is higher, they will be more willing to share critical information, be more willing to show up for calls from security guards, and have a general higher level of respect for security guards. With increased mandatory training then security can be given more sophisticated responsibilities, also the generation of possible new legislature giving more legal authority to security guards. security companies would be able to charge more for services, thus higher pay. Guards would also gain higher pay because the amount of training and qualifications would be tougher to pass.

One of the obvious minuses would be the extra cost to security companies to train new employees. This could be alliviated by outside training companies used to train multiple companies for reduced costs. THis would create more jobs also in training guards. If training standards were higher then more companies and outlets would possibly want security if they have more faith the security will actually make a difference.

if you have anything to add or have a comment because my thinking may be flawed in some areas then let me know. I want to make this as serious as possible so thought would count.

also currently to get a state issued unarmed guard card you need 8 hours training, drug test, and background test. for any armed card it is only an additional 16 hours of training, and the background test is stricter. most guards go into their job poorly trained if they actually do get in a situation and laibility for both the contract company and the client company.

It might be helpful to look at other states training guidelines to help with what training should be mandatory. Here is CA http://www.dca.ca.gov/bsis/licensing...d_training.htm

I personally think CPR, First aid, and AED should be a must.