Twin Cities (Minnesota) security officers authorize strike

[davis002]

http://www.startribune.com/local/15478646.html

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S341997.shtml?cat=1

"Security officers who protect the majority of commercial office buildings and other major properties in the Twin Cities voted Saturday to authorize their bargaining committee to call a strike if necessary."

"Security officers play a critical role in upholding our public safety, and they provide an invaluable service to our community," said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. "We need them as our partner in the police department and the City of Minneapolis."

"If security officers strike, the Teamsters have pledged to honor the picket line. That could keep building tenants from receiving many non-U.S. Mail packages."

[CorpSec]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I do think that asking for a 125 percent increase in wages is a bit steep on the union's part.

I hope that they are able to win some nice concessions.

[davis002]

Am I reading that correctly... 125%?

[CorpSec]

"Thomas said the two sides were far apart. He said the union's proposal includes a 125 percent increase in wages and an increase in health care costs to management."

[davis002]

If they don't budge on that 125%, then I see the strike becoming a reality.

[CorpSec]

I hope that was a typo in the article. That is crazy. A lot of officers would price themselves right out of a job.

A lot of companies hire security because it makes fiscal sense to do so. For example the amount saved on insurance premiums more than covers having a security contract. If that balance shifts, companies will start getting rid of or reducing their security force.

Corporate america runs on budgets. Trying to get more money put into your departmental budget is a big undertaking. The profit centers of a corporation are first in line for any increase in budget dollars. The items that are seen as drains on the bottom line such as maintenance and security get table scraps.

[ValleyOne]

I hope that was a typo in the article. That is crazy. A lot of officers would price themselves right out of a job.

A lot of companies hire security because it makes fiscal sense to do so. For example the amount saved on insurance premiums more than covers having a security contract. If that balance shifts, companies will start getting rid of or reducing their security force.

Corporate america runs on budgets. Trying to get more money put into your departmental budget is a big undertaking. The profit centers of a corporation are first in line for any increase in budget dollars. The items that are seen as drains on the bottom line such as maintenance and security get table scraps.

I think SecTrainer and I are still trying to figure out how hiring company X will offset enough of anyone's insurance premiums to save money.

I don't get it myself. I can completely understand an insurance company coming in and saying if you want coverage your getting security, but that's a little bit different than "saving" money on premiums by spending money on security.

[CorpSec]

I have always been under the impression that having security reduced premiums. I could be wrong.

I guess my point is that it seems to me that there are a lot of companies that have security officers for other reasons than they are 100 percent committed to a security program.

[Chucky]

Are non union companies that hire union workers obligated to union demands or can they toss the union workers to the curb and hire non union security? If they strike I am anxious to see if the union pays them for being out of work? And what union do they belong to? If it's the one from Fl then they are sneaky liars looking to line their own pockets from 3rd world workers. This would be a good test.

[davis002]

what union do they belong to?

SEIU http://www.seiu26.org/

[craig333]

Thats nuts. No one ever gets anything like that. Even if thats where you need to wind up you don't ask for it all at once. I was always told that asking for what you knew was unreasonable was considering negotiating in bad faith.

When I was a member of our companies negotiating committee and the members would say "ask for 10%, we know we won't get it but might as well start high" we have to tell them they were nuts. Go in like that and get laughed right out the door.

[NRM_Oz]

This happened about 10 years back in Sydney when armoured truck crews went from 3 to 2 bodies and there was a major strike. Some people were going in with soft cell vans and sitting on piles of cash to service their stores without armed guards. There was station wagons leaving our reserve bank with visible cash bags in the back covered by a sheet.

As for the reduction in premiums, also consider that some companies MUST have armed guards to move cash or valuables after a certain ceiling has been hit or the need to reduce the value into certain amounts.

[OMG_Ihatethisjob]

News editors are anti-union

Except for the writer's strike in Hollywood, most news stories on union strikes are written to give readers the impression the union is asking too much. The 125% increase is either a typo error, or the pay increase is spread out over maybe a 10 or 15-year span. Its probably a typo, and its suppose to say 25% increase. The news editor will neglect to mention its 25% spread out over 5 years; which is an average of 5% increase per year to reflect cost-of-living inflation.

If its not a typo error, its probably spread out to 10 years, which is an average of 12.5% a year. This would still be fair if the company doesn't provide medical and dental coverage in their benefit package. Compared to California non-union S/Os, the pay scale in Minnesota is very generous. I hope these union S/Os get everything they're asking for.

A few years back, the news reported on the supermarket strike in southern CA, and claimed the strikers wanted a 30% raise. They neglected to mention the raise was spread out over 5 years, which is really a 6% raise per year to reflect cost-of-living inflation. The news editors vilified the striking union workers by making it appear as if they wanted a 30% a year pay raise, which comes out to 150% raise over 5 years. If they're pulling the same trick, then 125% divided by 5 years = 25% per year. I bet what they really meant was a 25% raise, spread out over 5 years, which is 5% a year.

[SecTrainer]

I have always been under the impression that having security reduced premiums. I could be wrong.

I guess my point is that it seems to me that there are a lot of companies that have security officers for other reasons than they are 100 percent committed to a security program.

Whether hiring security reduces premiums or not depends on a variety of circumstances pertaining to the risk profile and the coverage that the company is carrying.

However, you're not going to justify hiring security on the basis of premium reductions. They could completely eliminate the premium on the typical corporate liability policy and it still wouldn't cover but a small percentage of what the security officers are going to cost you, so that cannot be the "rationale" for hiring security. And, of course, they're not going to eliminate the premium - they might drop it 10%. If your client is paying premiums of, say, $10,000 per month, he'd save $1000. You couldn't even give him one guard for that, obviously. So, at best, the "insurance savings" are just frosting on the cake, so to speak.

You sell security on the basis of the much greater benefits it can provide in terms of reduced loss from theft, a safer and more productive work environment for employees, customers who feel safer to visit the premises, lowered levels of liability in the event of lawsuits should an adverse event occur, and sometimes because security has been mandated for certain venues by government regulators, etc.

A company that is more secure should also be more efficient, should be able to operate facilities in areas (or countries) that would otherwise not be safe enough to consider doing business in, etc., etc.

In other words, you sell security because of all the benefits it can bring to the bottom line profits of a business, not because they'll save a few bucks on their insurance premiums. Your service will cost them much more than they'll save in premiums, but it will (more than) pay them back in other ways that are much more important.

[craig333]

Except for the writer's strike in Hollywood, most news stories on union strikes are written to give readers the impression the union is asking too much. The 125% increase is either a typo error, or the pay increase is spread out over maybe a 10 or 15-year span. Its probably a typo, and its suppose to say 25% increase. The news editor will neglect to mention its 25% spread out over 5 years; which is an average of 5% increase per year to reflect cost-of-living inflation.

If its not a typo error, its probably spread out to 10 years, which is an average of 12.5% a year. This would still be fair if the company doesn't provide medical and dental coverage in their benefit package. Compared to California non-union S/Os, the pay scale in Minnesota is very generous. I hope these union S/Os get everything they're asking for.

A few years back, the news reported on the supermarket strike in southern CA, and claimed the strikers wanted a 30% raise. They neglected to mention the raise was spread out over 5 years, which is really a 6% raise per year to reflect cost-of-living inflation. The news editors vilified the striking union workers by making it appear as if they wanted a 30% a year pay raise, which comes out to 150% raise over 5 years. If they're pulling the same trick, then 125% divided by 5 years = 25% per year. I bet what they really meant was a 25% raise, spread out over 5 years, which is 5% a year.

I sure hope you're right. As underpaid as security is that would be plenty reasonable.