SEIU: Boston Guards Do Not Make Enough

[N. A. Corbier]

Problem Solved. This question could have, should have, been put in a new post.

[zm88]

Too bad, I saw the thread title hoping that there was a development to this.

[HotelSecurity]

at na sorry for reopening this
but does any one have pics of the los angeles fair police before they wehn with licoln and securitas

Wow! Opening up a 5 year old thread. I don't think most of the original posters are still around.

BTW I'm usually not tough on spelling, grammar & punctation but you suck

[airtight security officer]

The California State Fair has the California State Fair Police Department. I know they have a small number of regular, full-time cops who work year round and they have a large number of "seasonal" cops who only work during the fair.

The Los Angeles County Fair used to have it's own police department also, but they got disbanded sometime in the 1980's. They now contract with Securitas (god help them). I know that during the fair the Pomona and La Verne Police Departments, within whose jurisdictions the fair lies, have a heavy uniformed presence along with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies.

at na sorry for reopening this
but does any one have pics of the los angeles fair police before they wehn with licoln and securitas

[N. A. Corbier]

The California State Fair has the California State Fair Police Department. I know they have a small number of regular, full-time cops who work year round and they have a large number of "seasonal" cops who only work during the fair.

The Los Angeles County Fair used to have it's own police department also, but they got disbanded sometime in the 1980's. They now contract with Securitas (god help them). I know that during the fair the Pomona and La Verne Police Departments, within whose jurisdictions the fair lies, have a heavy uniformed presence along with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies.

It just amuses me that a fair that draws less then 25,000 people has its own full time police department, but still needs the city and county police there.

Up here, fairs and stuff have their own police departments. (That's right, the Kenosha County Fair is protected by the Kenosha County Fair Police Department.

The California State Fair has the California State Fair Police Department. I know they have a small number of regular, full-time cops who work year round and they have a large number of "seasonal" cops who only work during the fair.

The Los Angeles County Fair used to have it's own police department also, but they got disbanded sometime in the 1980's. They now contract with Securitas (god help them). I know that during the fair the Pomona and La Verne Police Departments, within whose jurisdictions the fair lies, have a heavy uniformed presence along with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies.

[N. A. Corbier]

USA Today, the Washington Post, Newsweek, etc. have all covered this, most likely after the FAS report. In these editorials and articles, they ask interesting questions, but aren't so quick to condem the industry as our local media is.

Why aren't these people trained?
Why are they allowed to protect public places such as malls and grocery stores and wal-marts without training?
Why aren't there background checks?
Why doesn't the state legislatures protect the public from inadequate training?

The big three, of course, were quoted saying, (paraphrased) "This is ludicrious. A guard watching a construction site dosen't need the same level of training as a guard watching a mall." The point he was making is obvious: We will resist any efforts to make training a requirement, as we'd have to train guards and it costs us money to do so.

I'm reading the FAS report right now.

Interesting how National Strategy (P.L. 107-56) notes that banking and finance, information technology, and large gathering places are all infrastructure sites.

Up here, fairs and stuff have their own police departments. (That's right, the Kenosha County Fair is protected by the Kenosha County Fair Police Department. No, I don't know how many officers it has. We have 100,000 residents. Local and County police also are deployed.) I'm unsure if they consider a "mall" as a large gathering place, though.

[Sierra 1]

Federalization/Regulations

All-

I base my assumptions (federal regulation) on the events of the past and present. The United States will be attacked again. The next attack will most likely result in the loss of not 3000 lives, but 20,000-30,000. The terrorists (badguys)/threats that the U.S. faces in this post 9/11 era are patient, intelligent, and cunning.
When I left the Marine Corps in 1990 and entered law enforcement, you could not have convinced me that private security would be assuming traditional police roles (prisoner transport for local governments, courtroom security, transit police services, and an increase in the protection of critical infrastructure- and not just by the large corporations). Law enforcement will continue to give up additional roles, and our industry (as local governments are begining to realize) is a huge untapped resource. No, the change will not happen overnight. Yes, the states will fight the change. However, what other industry is there to take the torch?
Below are links to some interesting information:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32670.pdf

http://www.independent.org/publications/TIR/article.asp?issueID=31&articleID=382

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/s181/s181e.html

SEIU: Wilrobnson Does Not Make Enough

[SgtUSMC8541]

It is refreshing to see a security company owner who realizes the value of proper training.

Someday, but for now, just a Branch Manager.

I would love to see that but I don?t think it will happen.

I agreee with Sarge on this one. I think that the most that could happen is that the Federal government will mandate that the states regulate the security industry, and leave it up to each individual state to determine how much "regulation" they will do. But I do not even think this will fly, beacuse the industry "big boys" will fight it tooth and nail.

What I have been doing is bringing in the IFPO's CPO cert for my better sites. When an officer earns the CPO I have it built in the contract to get them a rasie as well as a billing increase.

I think this is a great idea. It is refreshing to see a security company owner who realizes the value of proper training. And who rewards his guards for getting the training.

[SgtUSMC8541]

As far as "Special Police Officers," are they considered by the police brotherhood to be brothers, or are they uppity security guards taking jobs away from real police officers? I know this sounds rather a "drastic" to put it, but in the mind of many police officers, anything that looks like a cop but isn't a municipal public officer is a wannabe who the ___________ in city/state/federal government made it so they can take real police jobs away.

Not brothers but perhaps, cousins? The SP get the jobs that the ?real? Police don?t want. The Police know they get more training than the rest of the security officers (since they get none sometimes). You also find many of them are retired cops, military, and other state/federal employees.

[N. A. Corbier]

I can see that, and will eventually require CPO for all supervisory positions Sergeant and higher. The company will provide training materials, educational support, but as a condition of employment as a supervisory manager, you will be CPO certified. If not, highest you hit is Corporal.

As far as "Special Police Officers," are they considered by the police brotherhood to be brothers, or are they uppity security guards taking jobs away from real police officers? I know this sounds rather a "drastic" to put it, but in the mind of many police officers, anything that looks like a cop but isn't a municipal public officer is a wannabe who the ___________ in city/state/federal government made it so they can take real police jobs away.

Then again, there's always the infighting about "are private college cops real cops, are blah real cops, etc..." So I think folks like Tennsix know my point on that.

The industry does not want, and will fight very hard against, any mandatory training on state or federal level. They will state that the legislation places undue burdens on their operations (profit), that security guards are not required to be trained to perform observation duties, and that their in-house training system is above reproach for training guards to "observe and report." They will argue that protection is the provience of public law enforcement, not a private entity, and that additional training in such topics is not suggested or needed. They will cite instances where "trained guards" create liability by engaging in protective actions which draw lawsuits.

Many contracts place the guard there to protect property, not people, and those guards are there specifically for the purposes of observing incidents and reporting them to the client for insurance purposes. NOT to the police or anyone else. To the client.

If you read the thread about mall security and the officer who was robbed in his security vehicle, you'll see several points about protection vs. observation. I was thinking about how to protect malls from weapons. According to the powers that be in our industry, the actual protection of people in those malls is up to the police, who are called to restore order. The job of the security company observing that mall is to inform people of rules violations and ask them to comply, NOT protect people.

[SgtUSMC8541]

I believe that we will see (within the next 3-5 years) the federal government stepping in and regulating the hiring and training of security personnel. The states have obviously failed (in their weak attempts) in improving the quality of personnel, and the image of our chosen profession. Every year law enforcement organizations are forced to give up their traditional duties and hand the torch to the private sector (Metro Miami, Raleigh-Durham,N.C.,etc.). This will continue due to the impact of 9/11.

I would love to see that but I don?t think it will happen. The states will fight it. Where outside of federal jobs, can the federal government dictate the hiring requirements for private companies? Perhaps only for security contracts with the federal government, and I think they already do that. Even if they do find a way to do it, I think you are going to see the same mistakes that the states have made moved to the federal government. The minimums are going to be so low as to be almost useless. The only way is to get the states to step up and do it right. Connecticut just implemented an 8 hour guard card. In 2 years it becomes 12 and in 4 more years it will be up to 16 hours.

What I have been doing is bringing in the IFPO's CPO cert for my better sites. When an officer earns the CPO I have it built in the contract to get them a rasie as well as a billing increase. Now this raises the level of officers. If they do not earn the CPO in the first 6 months then they get removed from the site. Over time I will have CPO's working at all my better sites.

[Sierra 1]

Federal Regulation

I believe that we will see (within the next 3-5 years) the federal government stepping in and regulating the hiring and training of security personnel. The states have obviously failed (in their weak attempts) in improving the quality of personnel, and the image of our chosen profession. Every year law enforcement organizations are forced to give up their traditional duties and hand the torch to the private sector (Metro Miami, Raleigh-Durham,N.C.,etc.). This will continue due to the impact of 9/11.