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

[N. A. Corbier]

Lear Jets and pretty cars are tangible things that they can own and show off. Professionally trained employees have little more return value (in their eyes) than the idiot they just hired 3 minutes ago after doing a BI consisting of two questions:

"Have you ever killed a man?"
"Was it legal?"

Both will make the same money.

[SecTrainer]

Lear Jets and pretty cars are tangible things that they can own and show off. Professionally trained employees have little more return value (in their eyes) than the idiot they just hired 3 minutes ago after doing a BI consisting of two questions:

"Have you ever killed a man?"
"Was it legal?"

Both will make the same money.

Maybe it's time for a national "blue flu" day.

[jmaccauley]

Perhaps the companies that can't see the ROI of training have never been on the business end of a vicarious liability lawsuit. It's funny that multi million dollar operations have no clue that the security force that it employs can be the largest liability they have if proved to be incompetent or negligent. usually it's because it's the Human Relations or personnel department tha handles the hiring of security. They are looking at the bottom line without delving into it too deeply. Business professionals need a wake up call from their legal department occasionally. That's why they will throw money at a non-existant problem just to show "good faith," but not invest in protection of the assets. Legal needs to get involved and perhaps that is where the marketing needs to be directed.

[Bill Warnock]

Perhaps the companies that can't see the ROI of training have never been on the business end of a vicarious liability lawsuit. It's funny that multi million dollar operations have no clue that the security force that it employs can be the largest liability they have if proved to be incompetent or negligent. usually it's because it's the Human Relations or personnel department tha handles the hiring of security. They are looking at the bottom line without delving into it too deeply. Business professionals need a wake up call from their legal department occasionally. That's why they will throw money at a non-existant problem just to show "good faith," but not invest in protection of the assets. Legal needs to get involved and perhaps that is where the marketing needs to be directed.

Young man or lady, we are all proud of you! I and others, me for one have been beating this drum for 40+ years, and you would have thought by now all businesses would have signed on. But once again I am naif, many firms still do not have even a rudimentry security plan. I would have thought vicarious liability would have visited their door.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Curtis Baillie]

Perhaps the companies that can't see the ROI of training have never been on the business end of a vicarious liability lawsuit. It's funny that multi million dollar operations have no clue that the security force that it employs can be the largest liability they have if proved to be incompetent or negligent. usually it's because it's the Human Relations or personnel department tha handles the hiring of security. They are looking at the bottom line without delving into it too deeply. Business professionals need a wake up call from their legal department occasionally. That's why they will throw money at a non-existant problem just to show "good faith," but not invest in protection of the assets. Legal needs to get involved and perhaps that is where the marketing needs to be directed.

You're exactly right. That's why I get at least one call a month from an attorney looking for litigation support.

[N. A. Corbier]

Absolutely right. Business logic, when it comes to security and other facilities maintenance operations (why is that lumped in?) is always reactionary. "We're getting sued!" Time to get real protection. "Security costs too much, and doesn't do anything!" Time to hire a warm body company.