Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wackenhut Guards Sleep At Nuke Sites

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I'm gonna be mean here for a moment. Is this a contract security firm? If so, then the supervisor may not actually be required to care about client security breaches. His job is to supervise his employees. "Your," and by "Your" I mean the guard assigned to the post's, job is to observe the security breaches and report them to the proper client point of contact for them to decide what to do with.

    What is in the scope of the supervisor's responsibility is that the guard force follows all company policies and post orders. If you are not reporting these security breaches, then he is supposed to... remedy this through counseling or disciplinary action. If the guard force refuses to patrol, then the supervisor should be notified (or discover it through lack of reporting on those areas / guard management tour system showing failure to patrol / whatever) and take disciplinary action against the employees who are failing to patrol.

    Basically, his job isn't to care about terrorists filming the plant unless that's part of his scope of authority. That's the individual guard's job. His job actually is to make sure that the proper belt is worn, because that's what they pay the man for.
    With respect, I don't think we can parse things out in quite such a granular way as to propose that a supervisor's interest or obligation should ever be limited to watching his people, or seeing that his people do what they are supposed to do. The security mission belongs to the security organization as a whole, not to the individual.

    Supervisors, especially, have both oversight responsibilities and operational responsibilities that often do not differ much, if at all, from officer responsibilities. In almost all organizations, including the military, people at the line-supervision level play dual roles. They oversee the group and guide individual behavior to accomplish the mission, true, but they also carry guns and fight alongside the other team members as well.

    It's pretty hard to think of many situations in which it could realistically be said that a supervisor would or should be interested in whether officers are wearing their duty belts but would not be expected to take an interest in the person standing on the sidewalk filming the facility.
    "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


    • #17
      Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
      It's one of those jokes that's hard to laugh at, isn't it? Wealthiest nation in the world, and we can't get anything right where CI security is concerned. Name any of the enumerated critical infrastructures, and a child of 7 could defeat most of the so-called "security measures" that have been implemented since 9/11. The main problem is in the CI areas that are "privately owned" (most power plants, telecom, healthcare, agriculture, financial, etc.) and where the owners still have unfettered authority to put profit over security concerns. We've done a little better in government-controlled areas of CI...but not a lot.

      It is not a lack of expertise, either. On this very board there are a number of highly-qualified security specialists who, if they had the cooperation of their CI clients AND/OR the real power and commitment of the federal government behind them, could immediately identify and implement systems that would be significantly better than those we see now. You'd see no sleeping guards at nuke plants, I think I can guarantee.

      What we get, instead, is equivocation, delay and quibbling while, in Washington, the Congressional Research Service, the GAO and others file reports that clearly state what a miserable job we're doing with security.

      If you yourself wish to read any of these reports while you're in DC, check the toilet stalls of Federal buildings, where they're being put to good use as both laxatives and toilet paper. No matter how constipated you are, you WILL sh1t when you read one of these, and then you can wipe your a$$ with it just like administrative officials and Congressmen do. Gives you a special feeling for these people, but watch out for the stink.

      Whoops! Senator Snottbucket is out of paper. Quick, somebody - commission another report for Senator Snottbucket! We need the stall.
      lol...better to laugh than cry.

      I am lucky enough to have stumbled on the right job at the right time. Transitioning from contract to in house, a customer that sincerely wants to "do it right".
      formerly C&A

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
        I'm gonna be mean here for a moment.
        Shoot straight, I'm up for it.

        Is this a contract security firm?
        Yes, transitioning to in-house.

        If so, then the supervisor may not actually be required to care about client security breaches. His job is to supervise his employees. "Your," and by "Your" I mean the guard assigned to the post's, job is to observe the security breaches and report them to the proper client point of contact for them to decide what to do with.

        What is in the scope of the supervisor's responsibility is that the guard force follows all company policies and post orders. If you are not reporting these security breaches, then he is supposed to... remedy this through counseling or disciplinary action. If the guard force refuses to patrol, then the supervisor should be notified (or discover it through lack of reporting on those areas / guard management tour system showing failure to patrol / whatever) and take disciplinary action against the employees who are failing to patrol.

        Basically, his job isn't to care about terrorists filming the plant unless that's part of his scope of authority. That's the individual guard's job. His job actually is to make sure that the proper belt is worn, because that's what they pay the man for.
        I am saying the same supervisor will discipline the guard for not wearing the proper belt, but will not discipline the guard for failing to report breaches in security.

        The guard is an extension of the supervisor, a resource, a tool. Security issues at sites that I supervisor are MY issues to correct. The guard will only carry out the orders given him and only to the extent to which he is trained. As a supervisor, if a system, post order(s), or training is inadequate, it is my responsibility to define, analyze and report the 'weak-link' to the capt. along with a suggested written solution/superior "link". He will in turn issue a "strong-link" which I am to implement.

        If the issue is the security officer himself, than I need to work with him to ensure that he is properly equipped (in literal terms and also in terms of training, knowledge etc.) to do execute his post orders to the maximum of his ability. If the maximum of his ability falls beneath our minimum requirements, or if he refuses then we simply fire him.

        Our captain simply wants all of our various posts and assignments to be secure to the degree required by the customer. There is a security program (OPM) for the overall site which is expressed via post orders for individual posts. Everyone has to buy into the program, commit to it. Part of that commitment is identifying weak areas in the program its self, developing solutions and implementing improvements as ordered from our captain.

        A supervisor shouldn't be a uniform nazi so much as an exemplary security officer himself, who through his own merit, has a achieved a greater degree of control over the entire operation, including authority over other regular S/O's.
        formerly C&A

        Comment


        • #19
          I wonder how many of those guards who sleep on the job have just given up after years of reporting security breaches only to have nothing done. I don't expect my company or the client to pay any attention to me when I mention upgrades, who the heck am I, but when they ignore holes in the fence, broken locks, that does get demoralizing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by craig333 View Post
            I wonder how many of those guards who sleep on the job have just given up after years of reporting security breaches only to have nothing done. I don't expect my company or the client to pay any attention to me when I mention upgrades, who the heck am I, but when they ignore holes in the fence, broken locks, that does get demoralizing.
            Hell with all that. I am looking to improve any situation I involve myself in (you touch it you own it), and also to get a letter of recommendation for my resume from whoever has the most status on any job I work. If I can't achieve both those things (make a major contribution to the operation and have the operation make a major contribution to my resume), I'll work somewhere else.

            I think most of the time (maybe) that supervisors play a key role in the reporting process/morale process. Get your guys to make a contribution and when they do, make it so the result of the contribution is obvious. Door fixed,
            pat on the back from the customer...at the very least, a mention of making a contribution on the next performance evaluation, expediting paperwork for extra uniform requests, preferential treatment, pulling strings when possible. So much we can do.
            formerly C&A

            Comment

            Leaderboard

            Collapse
            Working...
            X