A hard look at major contract security.

[Mr. Security]

This is why my hope has been that one day the insurance companies are going to wake up. You hire Watchmen that pick up trash-you pay $xxxxx. in premimums (sp?). You hire a Security Guard you pay $xxxx. a fully trained Security Officer $xxx. The better security you have the lower your rate.

Exactly right. The only question will be if I'm willing to stay in the industry until this happens. I have a low tolerance for stupidity.

[HotelSecurity]

This is a problem that must be addressed. The guard cannot even O & R if not at his post or on rounds. Why hire security if you need a janitor? Because the client needs security for insurance underwriting and because it's an employer's responsibility to provide a safe working environment. This is the basis for negligence litigation against the client and the security provider.

This is why my hope has been that one day the insurance companies are going to wake up. You hire Watchmen that pick up trash-you pay $xxxxx. in premimums (sp?). You hire a Security Guard you pay $xxxx. a fully trained Security Officer $xxx. The better security you have the lower your rate.

[Mr. Security]

The client probably doesn't hire them to protect anything. They pick up butts because there's nothing else for them to do in the client's eyes. Its busy work. "The guard doesn't do anything, he just stands there."

This is a problem that must be addressed. The guard cannot even O & R if not at his post or on rounds. Why hire security if you need a janitor? Because the client needs security for insurance underwriting and because it's an employer's responsibility to provide a safe working environment. This is the basis for negligence litigation against the client and the security provider.

[N. A. Corbier]

This is a major issue with contract security too. I know of a hospital that has one guard for the whole place and they still want them to p/u cigarette butts from the sidewalks. Sooner or later someone is going to sue these security companies for not doing what they are contracted to do, namely, provide security.

I can see it now:

Plantiff's Attorney: Why were you away from your post?

Guard: My company requires me to P/U cigarette butts as required by the client.

Judgement: $$$$$$$$$

The client probably doesn't hire them to protect anything. They pick up butts because there's nothing else for them to do in the client's eyes. Its busy work. "The guard doesn't do anything, he just stands there."

[hrdickinson]

Well said Richard! There is a resource you might be interested in contacting in your back yard, Sugar Land Texas, retired US Army Chuck Hammaker, drop him an email at [email protected]. He is still the tops in the security field in threat analysis that might be of help those who don't really understand threat as many of us do but can't seem to get others to listen.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Thanks Bill, I'll get in touch with him.

[Mr. Security]

It's not only in contract security. I see it in In-House too. For a 500 room downtown hotel we used to have 2 Officers on the overnight shift. We are down to 1 working alone except if we get an organized group staying that we can get to pay for extras. But that is not the worse. What is worse (& I think it happens mainly in In-House) is the dumping of duties that have nothing to do with security on our backs. The owners & management think, security is sinoly wandering around the building, they can deliver newspapers at the same time or towels or check out folios or pick up breakfast coupons or unblock toilets etc etc etc etc etc!!!!!! If we complain we get threatened to be replaced by a contract company.

This is a major issue with contract security too. I know of a hospital that has one guard for the whole place and they still want them to p/u cigarette butts from the sidewalks. Sooner or later someone is going to sue these security companies for not doing what they are contracted to do, namely, provide security.

I can see it now:

Plantiff's Attorney: Why were you away from your post?

Guard: My company requires me to P/U cigarette butts as required by the client.

Judgement: $$$$$$$$$

[HotelSecurity]

It's not only in contract security. I see it in In-House too. For a 500 room downtown hotel we used to have 2 Officers on the overnight shift. We are down to 1 working alone except if we get an organized group staying that we can get to pay for extras. But that is not the worse. What is worse (& I think it happens mainly in In-House) is the dumping of duties that have nothing to do with security on our backs. The owners & management think, security is sinoly wandering around the building, they can deliver newspapers at the same time or towels or check out folios or pick up breakfast coupons or unblock toilets etc etc etc etc etc!!!!!! If we complain we get threatened to be replaced by a contract company.

[Mr. Security]

Well said Richard! There is a resource you might be interested in contacting in your back yard, Sugar Land Texas, retired US Army Chuck Hammaker, drop him an email at [email protected]. He is still the tops in the security field in threat analysis that might be of help those who don't really understand threat as many of us do but can't seem to get others to listen.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Bill & HRD,

Thanks. I might email this guy if this trend continues here. Maybe he can talk some sense into them.

BTW: I reported a high-level manager for disregarding the after-hours access policy. Time will tell who ends up on the loosing side. Usually, it's the s/o, but this guy really pushed it.

[Bill Warnock]

Alright, I have said this before in this forum and I will say it again: When a company outsources security, they take the monkey off their back and put it on the back of the contract security company which is in business to make a profit. Somehow, the clients think that if a company pays their officers $10.00 per hour, that they should be billed $10.50 (5% profit). As many in this forum have explained (especially SecTrainer and NA Corbier), the costs involved are much more complicated than that. The contract security industry looks very simple from the outside looking in. In reality, it is a tricky balance of revenue, direct costs, fixed costs and working capital that can sink a company quickly if the owners/managers are not on top of it.

The real problem lies with the clients who ultimately don't percieve the threat and the value of security and are not willing to pay a bill rate that allows for a reasonable wage with benefits. Obviously, this is a generalization. There are many clients that are willing to pay and many security companies that will pocket the difference out of greed!

There are also too many companies that do not understand their cost structure and underbid contracts hoping to "make it up on volume".

It's business and it is a jungle out there. I feel bad for a lot of you officers that get caught in the middle. The reality is that your ability and determination will prevail, just stay the course!

Well said Richard! There is a resource you might be interested in contacting in your back yard, Sugar Land Texas, retired US Army Chuck Hammaker, drop him an email at [email protected]. He is still the tops in the security field in threat analysis that might be of help those who don't really understand threat as many of us do but can't seem to get others to listen.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[hrdickinson]

Alright, I have said this before in this forum and I will say it again: When a company outsources security, they take the monkey off their back and put it on the back of the contract security company which is in business to make a profit. Somehow, the clients think that if a company pays their officers $10.00 per hour, that they should be billed $10.50 (5% profit). As many in this forum have explained (especially SecTrainer and NA Corbier), the costs involved are much more complicated than that. The contract security industry looks very simple from the outside looking in. In reality, it is a tricky balance of revenue, direct costs, fixed costs and working capital that can sink a company quickly if the owners/managers are not on top of it.

The real problem lies with the clients who ultimately don't percieve the threat and the value of security and are not willing to pay a bill rate that allows for a reasonable wage with benefits. Obviously, this is a generalization. There are many clients that are willing to pay and many security companies that will pocket the difference out of greed!

There are also too many companies that do not understand their cost structure and underbid contracts hoping to "make it up on volume".

It's business and it is a jungle out there. I feel bad for a lot of you officers that get caught in the middle. The reality is that your ability and determination will prevail, just stay the course!

[HospitalSO]

Many, MANY years ago I worked for a medium sized security company. They only paid us minimun wage, which at that time was $4.50 an hour (today it would be $8.00 an hour). We had some good guards that would do the basic things very well, locking required doors at the required times, doing regular patrols, etc. But if they encountered a dangerous situation, they would kind of look the other way or hide somewhere, because they did not want to risk getting injured or worse for only $4.50 an hour.

[Mr. Security]

Is the guy the guy who happens to be on the next shift the guy will be working? Most companies don't have "training officers" or "training guards." Every guard is expected to "show the new guard around."

No. Both companies that I have worked for tell their clients that the training will be conducted at the supervisor level. After they get the contract, they simply delegate it to whomever. The account is a complex one involving many CCTV cameras, HVAC operations, 40 zones for fire control and eight different buildings that must be patrolled. The account is expected to grow substantially. Why management jeopardizes a lucrative account by having incompetent guards train here is beyond me.

[N. A. Corbier]

It drives me up the wall. In addition, they have a guy who is new to the site training him instead of using an experienced guard. The rookie guard will simply pass on his inexperience. As long as we have idiot managers like this calling the shots, contract security will always come up short.

Is the guy the guy who happens to be on the next shift the guy will be working? Most companies don't have "training officers" or "training guards." Every guard is expected to "show the new guard around."

[Mr. Security]

Because the new client doesn't know that. If they terminated him, they'd have to find a replacement, or even work it themselves.

It drives me up the wall. In addition, they have a guy who is new to the site training him instead of using an experienced guard. The rookie guard will simply pass on his inexperience. As long as we have idiot managers like this calling the shots, contract security will always come up short.

[N. A. Corbier]

I started this thread because every once in a while the decisions that contract security managers make are mind-boggling. Why would you take a former security supervisor who was removed from his site for incompetence and a poor attitude and move him to another site to work security??

Because the new client doesn't know that. If they terminated him, they'd have to find a replacement, or even work it themselves.