Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Security just a scam?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SP1
    replied
    Drugs

    Originally posted by talon View Post
    Along the same lines...do you think that the public police really want to win the "war on drugs"? Imagine how many police, emt's, correction officers, clerks and attorneys to name a few would lose out. Its all about money.
    I am sorry, but I have to agree with Talon on this. Having worked as a Customs Special Investigator, Police Investigator and Police Officer, I have had first hand knowledge on the effects of the money the drugs have brought in, It is not hundred's of millions, but into the billions that are seized.

    Money buys corruption, why do you think drugs are so easily transported across the border? I was once involved in a drug bust overseas, the trafficker asked what it would take to turn my back for 5 minutes, I jokingly replied 500 million, he gave me a blank check and said.."Is that all?"

    After turning him in, I was in the area 2 weeks later and saw the same guy walking free. His response to me was..."You should of taken the money". So yes drugs=money=corruption.

    That is one of the major reasons I left the government. It was running rampant.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As much as it pains me to say this, I truly believe that security firms essentially exist to put themselves out of business. Think about it, if a previously anarchic site brings in a security firm that eliminates the lawlessness and the environment becomes essentially crime-free, and stays that way as long as the security firm is there, there are going to be some people, whose primary concern is their firm's bottom line, who aren't going to see a need for so much security, and will find reasons to reduce or eliminate it. As soon as that happens, however, lawlessness starts back on the rise and the security that remains, faced with an increased workload, gets blamed for the problems that continue to arise, and eventually, the company is either eliminated or replaced, and the cycle will then repeat itself. If more firms would simply open their eyes and see that nothing happens with their current security staff, that is not a reason to get rid of them, but rather to keep them around so that it stays that way.
    It really isn't a matter of people erroneously seeing less need for security when a previously chaotic condition is brought under control. In fact, there *IS* often less need for security as the threat diminishes, and that's the whole point of bringing it under control. You haven't brought it under control if you can only maintain control with a very high security presence. If that's the case, you haven't actually modified the threat environment itself.

    The error would be in believing that the need for security has vanished completely on the basis of a lack of new "incidents". There will always be some level of threat, and any reduction in force must be based on an objective reassessment of the new (or modified) threat environment. If the effort has been successful, however, the threats will be reduced and it is very reasonable to reconfigure and re-task the security force as long as it is done properly and monitor the situation closely to be sure you're maintaining the new secure status of the property.

    Naturally, there's something a little ironic about the idea of "working ourselves out of a job", but it's not that unusual, either. A physician who strives to keep his clients healthy might be said, in a way, to be reducing the income potential that he might have if his clients were sick and needed to visit the clinic every week, or when he cures a patient and finds himself saying "You don't need to come back now until your regular checkup next year." He isn't saying "You don't need healthcare anymore", but "We can drop back to maintenance healthcare now...the threat has been abated." I think of it somewhat like that.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 07-30-2007, 02:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by wjohnc View Post
    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
    You might have a better experience working for an "internal" security department such as one in a hospital, airport or some other larger employer rather than a contract agency.

    It might also be that your experience is showing you a gap in the contract agency niche in your area that needs to be filled by someone who has a higher vision of what security can be when it takes its duties seriously. Who knows that there aren't security clients out there who are saying the same thing and looking for something better?

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    update

    After one of our mobile patrol units got into an accident because he was in a rush, very few people actually able to finish their tours, etc. etc. the decision has been made to cut coverage way back. So that the sites we hit actually are secure. That makes me feel a little better.

    Also, change is in the air and its allot bigger than this recent cutback. I think the cutback may just be a part of that. If it is what I think it is, it is a very very good thing. We'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • tattedupboy
    replied
    As much as it pains me to say this, I truly believe that security firms essentially exist to put themselves out of business. Think about it, if a previously anarchic site brings in a security firm that eliminates the lawlessness and the environment becomes essentially crime-free, and stays that way as long as the security firm is there, there are going to be some people, whose primary concern is their firm's bottom line, who aren't going to see a need for so much security, and will find reasons to reduce or eliminate it. As soon as that happens, however, lawlessness starts back on the rise and the security that remains, faced with an increased workload, gets blamed for the problems that continue to arise, and eventually, the company is either eliminated or replaced, and the cycle will then repeat itself. If more firms would simply open their eyes and see that nothing happens with their current security staff, that is not a reason to get rid of them, but rather to keep them around so that it stays that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bern Wheaton
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • wjohnc
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by wjohnc View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wjohnc
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by K-9 Aussie View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • K-9 Aussie
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric
    replied
    Originally posted by davis002 View Post
    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......

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    How can a company lose 200k a year and stay in business?
    Write it off as a loss, and take the tax break.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X