Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5,000 'Illegals' Work In Security

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

  • 5,000 'Illegals' Work In Security

    So much for the private security industry in the United Kingdom.

    Click Here For News Report

    Could this happen in your part of the world?

  • #2
    Hmmmmmmm sounds like something from Australia ?

    Years ago too many students were working in Security who were limited to 20 hours a week and were therefore entitled to about 2 shifts a week. Many of them worked beyond this for cash in hand and were willing to forgo penalties in order to get the extra cash - hence why so many companies could under cut me by 50% when I had my security firm. It still goes on today but is not so common with student visas not considered good enough for someone to hold a licence.
    "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice. I often wonder about the wisdom of hiring guards on student visas from "terrorist" countries, then putting them in the city's tallest buildings, with access to keys, security and emergency procedures, alarm codes, building blueprints, fire control rooms, ID making equipment, etc.
      Personally, if I had to use them, I'd post them at the dump or a used car lot.
      "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
        Nice. I often wonder about the wisdom of hiring guards on student visas from "terrorist" countries, then putting them in the city's tallest buildings, with access to keys, security and emergency procedures, alarm codes, building blueprints, fire control rooms, ID making equipment, etc.
        Personally, if I had to use them, I'd post them at the dump or a used car lot.
        Timothy McVey was a terrorist. Does that make the US a "terrorist country"?
        I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
        Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

        Comment


        • #5
          Umm...

          Timothy McVey was a terrorist. Does that make the US a "terrorist country"?
          I believe it would have to be more than .0001%* of the population to be considered a terrorist nation.



          *not a real stat, but probably close

          Comment


          • #6
            The company I work for will not hire anyone who is not a citizen... with Military or Law enforcement experience... my direct supervisor is a retired chief, average of 10 years of experience for all the ex-lawmen... higher ups are all retired dea/fbi/troopers.

            Needless to say I actually deal with relative professionals at my work
            Overmotivated and Underpaid... I'm a Security supervisors wet dream...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
              Timothy McVey was a terrorist. Does that make the US a "terrorist country"?
              Never mind, Badge 714 - I understood what you meant by "terrorist nations" and I'm sure most of the rest of us did as well. Even newspapers use the phrase without needing to explain it.

              In any case, I agree with Badge 714 that extreme caution must be used in hiring individuals from "terrorist" regions for security positions AND caution in the selection of posts to which they are assigned. Be equally cautious about persons coming from OTHER countries where there has been an "open-door" policy toward nationals from terrorist nations as well...such as Canada, for instance.

              The main reason for taking such caution has nothing to do with ethnicity. The main problem with such applicants is the extreme difficulty of performing an appropriate background investigation on people coming from certain parts of the world. In "terrorist nations", the main barriers are social chaos, religious tradition and clannism. However, "terrorist" countries are not the only places where backgrounding can be nearly impossible.

              In the old Soviet Union, there is a sheer lack of organized record-keeping that is available to the public, and the chaos that ensued during the collapse of the USSR which meant that records were destroyed. In England, Germany, Canada and to a somewhat lesser degree, France, the problem is legal - in the form of "privacy laws" that have simply gone amok. In certain Asian countries, there are many cultural barriers at various levels - family, social and corporate - that slam the door shut on gathering information. And, for most foreign nationals from any country, the biggest problem with backgrounding is really the cost involved - you simply can't afford to do it.

              Bottom line: Don't hire anyone from ANYWHERE if, for any reason (social chaos, inadequate system of public records, laws, culture, or cost) you are unable to perform a background check that meets the same standards as one required for a US citizen. AND - never assume that such a background check has been done by a previous employer, whether the applicant is a US citizen or not, merely because they already have a guard card.

              In the US, one may not discriminate in hiring on the basis of national origin. However, you should never misinterpret this to mean that you must hire foreign nationals...especially in our industry. You simply apply ALL of the same hiring criteria to ALL individuals of ANY national origin (including US), and this obviously includes the well-established requirement to perform a satisfactory background investigation. When it is either impossible to perform such an investigation, OR when it presents an undue cost burden to your company to do so, these are both perfectly acceptable defenses to a charge of discrimination and based on the EEOC's well-publicized "case-selection" criteria, I doubt they would even take on the case. The EEOC actually only takes on a very small, select number of the jillions of complaints that come to them due to budget and manpower constraints. A case has to be very "important" to them to get their attention. You might get a letter from the EEOC asking for an explanation of your hiring decision, but I'd bet the south section of the farm that if you follow the protocol above and present the background requirement clearly, it would go no further than that.

              One caveat: If, as I think unlikely, you should find yourself compelled by the EEOC to hire a foreign national for whom you feel the backgrounding is inadequate to justify placement in a high-security post, you should clearly establish written and objective "extra" backgrounding criteria for such posts - again applied to ALL employees - or you might find yourself dealing with another EEOC complaint. "Discrimination" to the EEOC includes not only your hiring decisions, but also your decisions AFTER hiring, such as issuance of equipment, providing the same training opportunities, the same job assignments, the same promotion opportunities, and every other "job decision" by which an employer could discriminate. You cannot simply assign people to "guard the dump" without objective policies that specify how post assignments will be made.
              Last edited by SecTrainer; 11-12-2007, 10:29 PM. Reason: misspelling
              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
                Timothy McVey was a terrorist. Does that make the US a "terrorist country"?
                No more than the FLQ or the Squamish Five make Canada a terrorist country.
                Last edited by OccamsRazor; 11-13-2007, 03:18 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What made me cringe was becoming NLPM of a retailer who required the electronics division to have security alarm licences (due to sales and services) and when I found out that 98% of them did not them and that of those who could apply about 70% of these had criminal records but were never disclosed in their employment records - despite a requirement to have all security personnel checked in state and federal databases.

                  What worries me most is how do you tell who is legal and who is not legal since there is no way besides a background check with fingerprints to say otherwise ? Even then there is NO 100% surety that what you will come up with the same person before you. I did know of 1 group of brothers who would lend their licences out so their friends could earn a cash income and if challenged had a licence to cover them (not their's of course).
                  Last edited by NRM_Oz; 11-13-2007, 04:30 PM.
                  "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OccamsRazor, I think you just made his point for him.
                    "A good deed’s like pissing yourself in dark pants. Warm feeling but no one notices." - Jacob Taylor

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
                      Timothy McVey was a terrorist. Does that make the US a "terrorist country"?
                      Maybe you should think before posting trash like this. Canada goes un-touched because of your big brother to the south. How about a little respect?
                      ATTN. SPECOPS AND GECKO45 my secret username is CIDDECEP and I am your S2. My authorization code is Six Wun Quebec Oscar Fife. Your presence here is tactically dangerous and compromises our overall mission parameter. Cease and desist all activity on this board. Our “enemies” are deft at computer hacking and may trace you back to our primary locale. You have forced me to compromise my situation to protect your vulnerable flank. This issue will be addressed later.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A "terrorist country" is a country that, through official channels, supports terrorism. Usually by directly aiding and arming terrorist forces, but sometimes through the refusal to prosecute known terrorists.

                        It has nothing to do with "how much o' tham terrerists ya got" in the country. If that was the measure, than Ireland and Northern Ireland would be "terrerist countries," as well as several European nations such as Spain, etc.

                        Now, if the Republic of Northern Ireland were actively supporting and harboring the PIRA, then yeah. They'd be a "terrorist country."

                        (See how I use Terrerist for the popular ill-informed definition.)
                        Some Kind of Commando Leader

                        "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree whole heartedly with SecTrainer's post on this subject. In fact almost all the posts are extremely insightful into this issue. (EXCEPT the Timothy Mcveigh post, asking if that makes the USA a terrorist state. I'm sure the poster will clarify they were just kidding, SOON.)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bpdblue View Post
                            I agree whole heartedly with SecTrainer's post on this subject. In fact almost all the posts are extremely insightful into this issue. (EXCEPT the Timothy Mcveigh post, asking if that makes the USA a terrorist state. I'm sure the poster will clarify they were just kidding, SOON.)
                            There was the sarcastic happy face in the post.

                            I made the statement because it reminded me of what the US & Canada did to Japanese Americans & Canadians during the 2nd World War. They were forbidden to work & were forced into camps bacause of their heritage. This mind set is starting to be taken towards Islamic people here in North America. It is wrong - Not all Islamic people (not even a small percentage) are terrorists.
                            Last edited by HotelSecurity; 11-13-2007, 07:07 PM.
                            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by IrishCop View Post
                              So much for the private security industry in the United Kingdom.

                              Click Here For News Report

                              Could this happen in your part of the world?
                              At least I can say there are no illegals working in Miami in the security or in any other business.

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X