Major aggravation...I work security for a security company. The account we work involves dozens of sites across three counties. There are stationary guards at some of the sites, a mobile patrol that tours all of the sites, and mobile supervisors that supervise both the guards at the sites and the mobile patrol.
Prior to six months ago, the customer was dealing with a serious security problem, hundreds of thousands a year in theft, multiple severe safety issues- some of them resulting in fatalities. High insurance premiums, high liability. Expensive legal defense, expensive settlements etc etc.
Six months ago two new people started working the site on the mobile patrol, quickly moved up through the ranks and now one of them is site supervisor and one of them second shift mobile supervisor. As we moved up and were given more and more control and responsibility, security improved exponentially. Theft is virtually zero, safety issues are resolved immediately, and there has not been a single fatality in six months. Much of this can be attributed to simply taking pride in our jobs, providing excellent and ongoing training, and combating the culture of complacency at every step. We took shoe string security and made it actually effective.
I find out today that the security budget has been cut dramatically because the customer sees no need for this much security when there are no real security problems! We lost half of everyone. Half the guards, half the mobile patrol.
The account manager for our security company tells us that we are doing too good a job! We were actually scolded about this.
Now it all makes sense. That the security company always nurtured a culture of complacency, hired crap guards, and seemed to favor and encourage incompetence wherever it showed its head.
To the security company, it is no good when the customers property is actually SECURE because the apparent need for security seems to fade. Of course the customer doesn't want to see the obvious fact that the reason why theft is almost zero, why the sites are safe and why liability is no longer an issue is BECAUSE security is actually doing its job and their investment is paying off in spades.
My job is actually safe as is that of a handful of others. But now my workload is increased dramatically. No raise.
Makes me think that private security altogether is just a scam. If the place is actually secure they don't need you anymore. So it is in the best interest of the private security guard, supervisor and company to make sure security is not all that great. Otherwise the workers lose their jobs and the company loses the contract.
Prior to six months ago, the customer was dealing with a serious security problem, hundreds of thousands a year in theft, multiple severe safety issues- some of them resulting in fatalities. High insurance premiums, high liability. Expensive legal defense, expensive settlements etc etc.
Six months ago two new people started working the site on the mobile patrol, quickly moved up through the ranks and now one of them is site supervisor and one of them second shift mobile supervisor. As we moved up and were given more and more control and responsibility, security improved exponentially. Theft is virtually zero, safety issues are resolved immediately, and there has not been a single fatality in six months. Much of this can be attributed to simply taking pride in our jobs, providing excellent and ongoing training, and combating the culture of complacency at every step. We took shoe string security and made it actually effective.
I find out today that the security budget has been cut dramatically because the customer sees no need for this much security when there are no real security problems! We lost half of everyone. Half the guards, half the mobile patrol.
The account manager for our security company tells us that we are doing too good a job! We were actually scolded about this.
Now it all makes sense. That the security company always nurtured a culture of complacency, hired crap guards, and seemed to favor and encourage incompetence wherever it showed its head.
To the security company, it is no good when the customers property is actually SECURE because the apparent need for security seems to fade. Of course the customer doesn't want to see the obvious fact that the reason why theft is almost zero, why the sites are safe and why liability is no longer an issue is BECAUSE security is actually doing its job and their investment is paying off in spades.
My job is actually safe as is that of a handful of others. But now my workload is increased dramatically. No raise.
Makes me think that private security altogether is just a scam. If the place is actually secure they don't need you anymore. So it is in the best interest of the private security guard, supervisor and company to make sure security is not all that great. Otherwise the workers lose their jobs and the company loses the contract.
Comment