security training.. things that bug me....

[UtahProtectionForce]

Well the things that bugged me when refering to security training, im sure bug many people here, i am appauled that many states consider watching videos being training, i do think this is why many s/os are ill-trained and ill-equiped, i do believe training should always be practical, stuff that you actually have to do, or set like a class room situation with an instructor, and students taking notes... or answering essay type questions aloud. I believe that if more companies practiced "practical training" persay, that it would also help weed out those whom are not adept to compling with the functionality of the field.


I just really hate it when the state says 8 hrs required classroom training and the instructor pops in a video walks out, and then 8hrs later hands you a test and says.. ok now take this.. what really lacks here. is the student is watching a video, and not neccesarily a high quailty one, they usually are low budget, and tiered to one states laws, where as many states laws require different target subjects, and that the videos are usually about 10 years old... because the companies dont want to spend money on new videos although the laws may have changed by then...


what are your opinions on video based training?

[Chimpie]

Video based training is either a good introduction or a good refresher, it shouldn't replace instructor based training.

When I moved to Florida I took their required course. It was part video based, part instructor. It was decent, but I had five years of industrial security and fire protection training, plus I double majored in LE and Security Mgmt. prior to attending so for me it was a little dry. I tried to look at it from the point of a complete newbie and from their eyes it lacked a lot of the basics. I would only hope that whatever site an officer like that would be stationed at, they would go through some good, high quality OJT.

I have seen some training videos that were really well done. Prior to going through fire training I watched quite a few videos. When it was time to go through the classes I understood more because I was able to visualize what they were talking about.

[N. A. Corbier]

I've taken the Florida 24 Hour (Original) and Florida 40 hour course. Throughout the 24 Hour course I took in 1994, I think we didn't watch videos for about 3 hours, two of them taking a test.

The school was through Weiser Security's local branch in town, and was free to anything that could walk through the door and show up. The test was open book, which I found out was probably illegal.

The State decides what you learn, so much in that they give a bulleted sheet to certified and licensed "Class DI" instructors which outlines what the "D" school will teach.

The 40 hour course was through S2 Institute/CIS, and consisted about 2 hours out of 40 of videos, which weren't designed to replace a live instructor.

However, on the point of "tailored for one state," what does one expect? You are being trained to the state requirements of your employer's state. Be lucky that the training tapes actually pertain to your state, the stuff Weiser showed us had nothing to do with Florida, or the 1990s.

Since Florida schools teach a wide variety of people going to a wide variety of companies, they can't really get "hands on" or do anything that would jeopardize their contracts to train applicants of other companies.

As a S2/CIS instructor once put it in a D class, "Most of you are going to work for companies that prohibit anything more than observing and reporting. If you come to work for us down the hall, you will be required to do more than observe and report to keep your job."

[HotelSecurity]

I believe stongly in "hands on" training. Before anyone works alone in my hotels they must work 3 complete shifts with either me or my senior officer. In "the old days" before budget cutbacks no one worked alone until at least 30 days of on the job training.

I even do hands on interviewing. Since besides hiring & firing I also cover one of the 3 shifts, when someone comes for an interview I drag them with me on calls to observe if they are paying attention, if they can keep up etc.

Even things like fire extinguisher training, we do hands on. I don't like videos for our enviroment. I'm probably lucky however in that our people are trained for a spacific site. I imagin what the training you people are talking about is general, to be used at various sites.

[UtahProtectionForce]

I've taken the Florida 24 Hour (Original) and Florida 40 hour course. Throughout the 24 Hour course I took in 1994, I think we didn't watch videos for about 3 hours, two of them taking a test.

The school was through Weiser Security's local branch in town, and was free to anything that could walk through the door and show up. The test was open book, which I found out was probably illegal.

The State decides what you learn, so much in that they give a bulleted sheet to certified and licensed "Class DI" instructors which outlines what the "D" school will teach.

The 40 hour course was through S2 Institute/CIS, and consisted about 2 hours out of 40 of videos, which weren't designed to replace a live instructor.

However, on the point of "tailored for one state," what does one expect? You are being trained to the state requirements of your employer's state. Be lucky that the training tapes actually pertain to your state, the stuff Weiser showed us had nothing to do with Florida, or the 1990s.

Since Florida schools teach a wide variety of people going to a wide variety of companies, they can't really get "hands on" or do anything that would jeopardize their contracts to train applicants of other companies.

As a S2/CIS instructor once put it in a D class, "Most of you are going to work for companies that prohibit anything more than observing and reporting. If you come to work for us down the hall, you will be required to do more than observe and report to keep your job."

My point the vids that i saw in CA in 2001 were tailored to CA, And in 2003, The vids i saw in UTAH, we meant for CA, utah laws are different here then there and dated 1991......

[N. A. Corbier]

My point the vids that i saw in CA in 2001 were tailored to CA, And in 2003, The vids i saw in UTAH, we meant for CA, utah laws are different here then there and dated 1991......

ROFL. Ok, I see your point. That's... Wow. So, you know all about CA Private Arrest, don't you?

They showed us videos at Weiser from the 1970s.

[FireEMSPolice]

My company sends a video with a test to each mall and it gets passed from mall to mall. Since there really is no value in it, I just play the video and pass out the test "to get it all over with."

keep this saying in mind, "No banana, no monkey." A police chief I know told me this about most officers. Basically, if you dont pay them, they wont come to training. Now, our company doesnt like to pay extra for training. If they do, at most its for 1 hour every quarter after our meeting. Not enough to do anything practical.

[HotelSecurity]

Quebec has a law that requires a business to spend 1% of it's profits in training staff.

[N. A. Corbier]

If I remember correctly, you must pay your employees when conducting mandated training, because its "work" and you don't want to end up like Wal-Mart.

I wonder if "optional" training is required to be paid?

[LPCap]

If I remember correctly, you must pay your employees when conducting mandated training, because its "work" and you don't want to end up like Wal-Mart.

I wonder if "optional" training is required to be paid?

I know of a national security organization that DOESN'T pay for state mandated training because they "offer the state class for free". Meaning, you don't get your hourly wage for the 16 hours you sit there, but they do cover the cost of the $90 class (which is what you would pay if you took it at a state site).

I wonder if this is legal.

[kingsman]

The company I work for pays 20 hours of trtaining after you get your first check. You come in on tow days for ten hours. You pass the class, you get scheduled, and it appears on your first check.

[N. A. Corbier]

I know of a national security organization that DOESN'T pay for state mandated training because they "offer the state class for free". Meaning, you don't get your hourly wage for the 16 hours you sit there, but they do cover the cost of the $90 class (which is what you would pay if you took it at a state site).

I wonder if this is legal.

Companies do that in Florida, but its unlawful to hire anyone without a license, so you're not an applicant nor are you an employee while taking the free class. If you pass and get your Temp D, you can apply.

[Chucky]

I know of a national security organization that DOESN'T pay for state mandated training because they "offer the state class for free". Meaning, you don't get your hourly wage for the 16 hours you sit there, but they do cover the cost of the $90 class (which is what you would pay if you took it at a state site).

I wonder if this is legal.

Assuming that you are making $10.00 an hr then I would take the $160.00 and pay for the training myself. Then with the extra $70.00 I would have a nice lunch. And with the left over money I would try to fill my gas tank.

[hrdickinson]

My experience has been that in states where the training will result in a certification for the officer that's "portable", in that he/she can take it to the next company without additional training, that payment of wages is not always mandatory because you are providing a service to the officer that gives him/her an "asset". Even in those situations, however, many companies will still pay the officers because it makes it easier to attract better quality people.

On the subject of video training, I believe that it serves a purpose but doesn't replace the interaction with an instructor. There are some good products out there (like PSTN) that are effective if administered and tested properly.

I'd be interested to hear SecTrainer's thoughts on this.

[SecTrainer]

The use of video is no different, really, from any of the other training media, in that it has its place in the instructional mix, and also in the fact that it can easily be abused/misused.

Complex situational scenarios, such as response to a major facility fire, that would require literally thousands of words to describe verbally or in print are highly amenable to video presentations, but the video itself can't "stand alone" as a training method. Such a video would usually require introductory discussion prior to the presentation of the video, and then you would need to conduct an analysis or critique of the situation by the class after viewing. Sometimes this analysis might even be followed by a second viewing (now that the students have a "new understanding" of the concepts being presented), and it could also be followed up by practical exercises/drills.

If a video is long and/or presents numerous different concepts, the instructor will often pause the video for discussion at the end of each "section" before going on to the next, and then hold a round-robin discussion at the end.

So, I guess my comment would be that video is very valuable, in its place, but only when used properly in conjunction with other training techniques. All of this presumes, of course, that the video itself has good "production values". People these days are accustomed to high-quality video, and a "cheesy" production (i.e., badly scripted, an amateurish "cast", jerky transitions/fades, poor lighting/audio, bad camera work, extraneous special effects, etc.) can be sufficiently distracting to the viewer to destroy its instructional value. There's not much training happening when the audience is laughing at the production all the way through the video...and I have seen more than one such video.