Is Security just a scam?

[K-9 Aussie]

To put your mind at ease, it's no different anywhere in the world cocknaces.

I've come up against this problem time and time again and it is frustrating to say the least! You are just like me, and a lot of other forum members where you take pride in your uniform and work.

So many times now in my 14yrs I've been called in by the boss and told "I need you to go and clean up such and such a place, as the client has had enough and wants results". So off I go to the client, find out what the problems are etc and basically put my foot down and stop the problems.

Without fail everytime I eventually end up in the same situation you have found yourself in, that being a phone call from the boss telling me "they don't require you anymore as there hasn't been any problems recently etc".

When this occurs now, I simply go straight to the client and ask them outright is the cut back due to my presence and actions leading to a marked decrease in problems etc? My usual answer is "yes". This is my doorway to use leverage.

I simply advise the client of the following, "you say you can't afford us now, as there has been no recent problems etc, however it's now more than ever a case of can I afford not to have security?"

The clients usual reply is one with a puzzled look on their face with the preceeding question "what do you mean?"

My reply is "well you've now set a precident where you leagally admitted there were security issues here hence why you required our services. I've come in and completed the job at hand which was to sort out the trouble etc." "Do you realise that if an incident now occurs and a member of the public is injured you will be criminally liable for failure to provide adequate "duty of care", knowing full well what has happened in the past and why you initially required security. Not to mention civil repocussions too. In fact your insurance companies may fail to honur their agreements with you too as you knowing had/have issues yet fail to act in an appropriate manner."

I then usually go through some scenarios with them, each time their mouths hitting the floor raming home my speech.

I have always found the problem is that the client doesn't understand their legal obligations correctly. These days of simply hiring security to sort out issues and then cancelling or reducing their services is far gone when they now know they have set a legal precident by admitting they have had issues by hiring security in the first place and now must keep that up.

[locknid]

to the original post. The company I am with takes great pride in what they do so we actually go pro-active. This means arrests, lots of resident/non-resident contact, etc. This leads to a couple different outcomes. Either residents complain to management about us, mostly because they were arrested by us or we are putting pressure on their drug sales. Next is the apts who think we are doing a good job and keep us. THen there are those that believe since their property has gotten better they no longer need security, of course once we are gone their crime rates pick back up.

It is not our responsibility to worry about stupid management who doesn't know what they are doing. I know I am doing a good job but it does make me mad when we loose a property that I saw personally transform.

[junkyarddog]

K-9 Aussie,

Unfortunately there was nothing we could have said or done to stop the cut. This company has/will lose allot of money in terms of theft, liability etc. This was argued over and over again to no avail.

I don't get how some companies can keep losing so much money and stay in business. A company that is in the same business as my customer loses over 200,00k a year in scrap to theft from ONE site. The site is a massive, closed down, facility shared with our customer. That other company owns the majority of the site. The law enforcement sergeant I work with almost every night keeps me up to date on the total dollar value (based on local scrap rates per pound) of scrap found in the possession of people we apprehend on the site. That other company will not pay for security and OUR customer only wants security for the limited area that company actually owns/uses. This has been going on for ten years. How can a company lose 200k a year and stay in business?

[junkyarddog]

to the original post. The company I am with takes great pride in what they do so we actually go pro-active. This means arrests, lots of resident/non-resident contact, etc. This leads to a couple different outcomes. Either residents complain to management about us, mostly because they were arrested by us or we are putting pressure on their drug sales. Next is the apts who think we are doing a good job and keep us. THen there are those that believe since their property has gotten better they no longer need security, of course once we are gone their crime rates pick back up.

It is not our responsibility to worry about stupid management who doesn't know what they are doing. I know I am doing a good job but it does make me mad when we loose a property that I saw personally transform.

The company I work with-at least this branch- doesn't take much pride in security. I am seriously considering going with another company.

[SecTrainer]

There always has been, and always will be, a "hired gun" aspect to security, and there's nothing particularly wrong with this in some cases.

There are undoubtedly some special "problem" situations where it is perfectly appropriate to hit the problem hard with lots of officers - a high visibility "strike force" - using aggressive hard-line procedures and "taking no prisoners". Then, at some point, it is equally appropriate to scale the security force back as the problems come under better control. This might take the form of swapping out the (presumably) highly-trained "strike force" for "regular" officers who don't need quite such high skills.

If done properly, however, the scale-back will not reduce staffing below the level necessary to maintain the "new equilibrium" without losing ground or giving the territory back to the bad guys.

Handling special situations does mean that a company will be posting special teams to temporary or "term uncertain" assignments, but a good company that knows its business will have another assignment waiting in the wings for the strike team, so the impact on employment for these people would be minimal or none. It's a little different from the regular long-term contract situation, but it meets a need and it suits certain kinds of officers very well to be "trouble-shooters".

[davis002]

How can a company lose 200k a year and stay in business?

Write it off as a loss, and take the tax break.

[Eric]

Write it off as a loss, and take the tax break.

That, and / or, charge more for their products. You and me the consumer get hit everytime you turn around.

Maybe for a scam, we could talk insurance......

[K-9 Aussie]

K-9 Aussie,

Unfortunately there was nothing we could have said or done to stop the cut. This company has/will lose allot of money in terms of theft, liability etc. This was argued over and over again to no avail.

I don't get how some companies can keep losing so much money and stay in business. A company that is in the same business as my customer loses over 200,00k a year in scrap to theft from ONE site. The site is a massive, closed down, facility shared with our customer. That other company owns the majority of the site. The law enforcement sergeant I work with almost every night keeps me up to date on the total dollar value (based on local scrap rates per pound) of scrap found in the possession of people we apprehend on the site. That other company will not pay for security and OUR customer only wants security for the limited area that company actually owns/uses. This has been going on for ten years. How can a company lose 200k a year and stay in business?

That's a lot of money to throw away a year! They must have excellent insurance coverage that's for sure. But I do agree with Davis002, they would most likely write it off for tax purposes, and who knows whilst they may claim $200,000pa in theft, they might actually claim $200,000pa + to the IRS as no one would really know a correct exact figure I'm guessing on what the actual losses are?

[junkyarddog]

There always has been, and always will be, a "hired gun" aspect to security, and there's nothing particularly wrong with this in some cases.

There are undoubtedly some special "problem" situations where it is perfectly appropriate to hit the problem hard with lots of officers - a high visibility "strike force" - using aggressive hard-line procedures and "taking no prisoners". Then, at some point, it is equally appropriate to scale the security force back as the problems come under better control. This might take the form of swapping out the (presumably) highly-trained "strike force" for "regular" officers who don't need quite such high skills.

If done properly, however, the scale-back will not reduce staffing below the level necessary to maintain the "new equilibrium" without losing ground or giving the territory back to the bad guys.

Handling special situations does mean that a company will be posting special teams to temporary or "term uncertain" assignments, but a good company that knows its business will have another assignment waiting in the wings for the strike team, so the impact on employment for these people would be minimal or none. It's a little different from the regular long-term contract situation, but it meets a need and it suits certain kinds of officers very well to be "trouble-shooters".

You sound a bit like our customers corporate security director here and that is kind of scary to me. None the less, what your saying makes sense and I wish it applied in this case. But as it is, they "swapped out" the least effective officers without replacing them, instead eliminating the positions. The swapped out guys are now at other accounts making less money. The "new equilibrium" cannot be maintained in this case. We simply do not have the time to be thorough, and alarms, incidents etc. (which happen constantly) means that very many sites will not be patrolled.

[junkyarddog]

That's a lot of money to throw away a year! They must have excellent insurance coverage that's for sure. But I do agree with Davis002, they would most likely write it off for tax purposes, and who knows whilst they may claim $200,000pa in theft, they might actually claim $200,000pa + to the IRS as no one would really know a correct exact figure I'm guessing on what the actual losses are?

I am sure you guys are right. It just seems like a sickening waste. All that money going to crack heads and bums.

[wjohnc]

I have been preaching the folowing for years now: It is the insurance industry that should be setting the standards for private security, not the governments.

Hear! Hear! Lay On, Good Sir!

I, too, have preached this to covered ears for many years! But, as someone pointed out, security companies are businesses, there to make money, not to actually protect anything.

wjohnc

[SecTrainer]

Hear! Hear! Lay On, Good Sir!

I, too, have preached this to covered ears for many years! But, as someone pointed out, security companies are businesses, there to make money, not to actually protect anything.

wjohnc

If I felt that way, I'd find a "scam" that pays better than security. There's lots of 'em out there.

The security industry does a very great amount of "protecting", in fact.

[wjohnc]

If I felt that way, I'd find a "scam" that pays better than security. There's lots of 'em out there.

The security industry does a very great amount of "protecting", in fact.

Yes, I agree to a point. As a whole I think it succeeds, but measured by individual companies and personnel, well, I'm afraid I've just seen too much crap here in Newfoundland to believe that they succeed.

Please bear in mind that I have had almost no exposure to companies outside this city of 160 000 people, and I apologize if I have offended your professionalism.

wjohnc

[Bern Wheaton]

I agree with allot of what all of you are saying ,Security company's are in it for the money. To find good one and a fair one is very hard indeed to find.

Most Security company's I have work for are more interested in controlling the client. And looking away from what ever they are doing! For you ,they just see as a body to do as your told and nothing else and to also look away from anything going on with your client! Your job is to protect and guard not to look into there business. And if there loosing money or not or stealing from there own company or not!

The sad truth is if you report it it might cost you your job, And you are being the true Security Officer and trying to protect your client. Which the company does not want you to do!

But this is just my two cents

[Christopherstjo]

Security is a business and like all businesses, there is always a potential for scams to be run by shady business owners. Clients become blind and figure that if everything is going great they don't need security; not realizing of course that everything is fine because of security. Its' a shame that your operations got hurt so bad, sounds like you were all working as a strong and focused team.