Several officers on this forum, including myself, work for large contract security companies. It's common to hear complaints that many of the security officers employed by such companies leave much to be desired. Why is that? Some of the reasons are listed below:
* Low pay/no or substandard benefits
* High turn over
* Inadequate training
* Poorly educated/unmotivated employees
* Morale issues
* Management that understands sales better than security services
* Clients who contract with the lowest bidder supposedly to save money, and because insurance requires 24/7 security before issuing coverage
* Clients who insist on value added services that are not security related
I'm sure that there are other reasons too. Of course, there are security officers employed by such companies that are conscientious and strive to set the example of what a professional security officer should be. Unfortunately, it seems to be a losing battle. In fact, you're more likely to be terminated if you are conscientious because so many clients simply want a security presence, not a proactive officer who enforces the post orders or documents security and safety problems that should be corrected. Security companies that sacrifice the security officer who does what is right rather than lose the client by backing up the officer, further compound this problem.
Is there a solution? If so, what is it and how can security contractors be compelled to accept the solution(s)?
* Low pay/no or substandard benefits
* High turn over
* Inadequate training
* Poorly educated/unmotivated employees
* Morale issues
* Management that understands sales better than security services
* Clients who contract with the lowest bidder supposedly to save money, and because insurance requires 24/7 security before issuing coverage
* Clients who insist on value added services that are not security related
I'm sure that there are other reasons too. Of course, there are security officers employed by such companies that are conscientious and strive to set the example of what a professional security officer should be. Unfortunately, it seems to be a losing battle. In fact, you're more likely to be terminated if you are conscientious because so many clients simply want a security presence, not a proactive officer who enforces the post orders or documents security and safety problems that should be corrected. Security companies that sacrifice the security officer who does what is right rather than lose the client by backing up the officer, further compound this problem.
Is there a solution? If so, what is it and how can security contractors be compelled to accept the solution(s)?
Comment