No moving to different contracts

[EMTGuard]

Here's one for alll the contract guys, and galls, out there. Since I've only worked for this one company I don't know how widespread the practice is but here it goes.
Over the past few months I've had the chance to talk to other officers posted at other sites who work for the same contract security company as I do.
As happens in the world of contract security, it's not uncommon to loose a contract to another company. Our people find out that another contract security outfit is going to be coming in and taking over. Most of the time the incoming company will not hire officers from our company, perfering to bring in an entirely new crew.
I can understand the reason for wanting a new crew with the new contract company but what happens to the old crew?
I would think that our company, always running ads in the local newspaper looking for security officers, would transfer the guards from the lost account into slots which needed filled at other contracts. My thinking is that the officers already have their guard card, uniforms, direct deposit and everything else and would just report at a new post across town from their old assignment. Not necessarily.
People I've talked to who lost their positions at one contract were not moved to other contracts. The company simply told them that they were losing the contract and to turn in uniforms and other equiptment on a certain date. You aren't offered other drops but, if you ask, you can reapply and get 'rehired'. You get put on a new post but are starting over with no vacation or sick time built up and no senority.
It happened a couple of years ago when Securitaus took over the chemical plant where I was posted. I was told that the new company was coming in, not hiring any of the people from the old company and to turn in my uniform on a certain date. There as never any mention of transfering to a different loction yet our company had ads in the paper looking for new hires. WTF?
The way they operate you get the impression that our company doesn't even have any other contracts. It's like, "oh well, we lost the contract to this post so good luck finding another job". Like a small mom and pop company instead of a large company with offices in several states.
Is this the way other companies do things?

[Lawson]

Here, with Wackenhut, if they happen to lose a contract to another S/O Co. they will work with you to finding you another post that has a pay rate that is relative and is also in the same proximity to your home. As far as I know, you can work any Wackenhut job in the country and your vacation still adds up.

[Charger]

Exactly, well put.

The first company I worked for, (big warm-body company, but not one of the G4 ones), worked this way... If they lost a contract, they'd go through the crew, and only keep the ones who had good performance records. The ones who didn't, got the shaft, and usually the blame for losing the contract. (Even if it was a management flub-up)

Of course, I thought it was hilarious that 2 months after I left that post, (3 years, worked my way up from peon to the head of the site), they lost the contract because of my replacement...

[HotelSecurity]

I don't work contract security so I'm not exactly sure but I think that in Quebec it is either a law or part of the union contract (MOST contract security people are unionized in Quebec) that the incoming company has to offer the people from the outgoing company jobs.

[hrdickinson]

No moving to different contracts

What a cynical bunch you guys are! It just tells me that none of the companies for which you work, communicate very well.

The following has been my experience: First of all, Wackenhut Lawson is absolutely correct. Any company with which I have been involved, carried over all tenure items if the officer is transferred.

When a new company takes over a contract, the client generally determines whether the incumbent crew stays, goes or a combination of the two. If a client wants an officer out, management might conclude (and should know first hand) that there must be a reason and may not transfer the officer. This is where field supervision comes in. A company generally doesn't lose a contract because of the staff, they lose it because of the lack of response on the part of the company when the client DOES have a problem with one of the staff. Most clients recognize that all security companies pull from the same labor pool.

If your company loses a contract, it is not your fault regardless of what supervision may tell you. It is there fault. If an officer came to work day after day with half their uniform, it is the supervisor's job to write them up, get in their face and tell them like it is.

If you happen to work for Guardsmark, or any other company that insists the officers sign a "non-compete" agreement, then the new contractor can't hire you and this has been tested in many state courts.

Hang in there guys, most good companies (and there are many) recognize that YOU are their business and that without YOU, they wouldn't be billing or collecting anything. You just need to find one of those companies. If you want to contact me through my website at www.hrdickinson.com, I know of good companies in most (not all) parts of the US. I don't charge for that, since I would be doing my clients a favor by referring a good officer!

[hrdickinson]

I'll take the liberty of assuming that was meant in jest.


I wouldn't say generally, at least not outside the bubble of corporate office environments where the guard staff is controlled by the perimeter (GuardScanners, access cards/codes, control room op.s, etc) and the immediate familiarity of the control zone is essential to the client.

Outside the corporate bubble, in an a/o that may be considered high-risk, the client sometimes needs a complete overhaul of operations, management and staff. My particular employer works hard to get/keep these types of accounts, usually in an SPO capacity. It's essential that the incoming staff on the new account be trained to our standards and that of and beyond the states (i.e.. former military, LE), as well as having proved themselves loyal to our methods. I can say almost 99% of the time the outgoing staff is completely unconsidered for the new positions, for reasons I stated above. And I can honestly say, I have never been directed by a client as to who will staff the positions we are accepting. I'm not saying that I wouldn't take their suggestions under consideration, but the ultimate responsibility rests on my shoulders to provide the most effective guard force.

EMTGuards situation may resemble this environment, albeit more a common one (non GSA/Government, open-ended contracts with escape clauses in every bi-line) to where the outgoing and incoming have no relationship and have no obligation to honor each others contract parameters. This is how it really is on the street-level, away from the electronic collar/ patrol wands of Wackenhut and Guardsmark. And, yes, most companies on this level do very little to communicate with each other.

Street code of the private contractor: Absolutely no trust for the competitor and it's staff.

JimmyHat,

Alright, let me restate that slightly different. If the client is ambivilent or positive as to the current staff, then it is up to the contractor to interview each staff member to determine whether they are acceptable and up to the new contractor's standards. If, however, the client is down on one or more security staff members, they are history, at least at that site. That may not be your experience, or how you run your company, but believe me that is what happens in the rest of the industry, at the street level.

[Jackhole]

I'm surprised that they wouldn't find something else for you, that's what Securitas always did. They would never lay anyone off and they would rarely fire anyone, because then their unemployment insurance rates would go up. They would just offer you a ridiculous site and when you didn't accept, it would be considered resignation.

[hrdickinson]

I'm surprised that they wouldn't find something else for you, that's what Securitas always did. They would never lay anyone off and they would rarely fire anyone, because then their unemployment insurance rates would go up. They would just offer you a ridiculous site and when you didn't accept, it would be considered resignation.

Yup, and a month later, corporate will be all over them because their overtime is rising and they wished they had you back. Managers like that routinely shoot themselves in the foot.

[Mr. Security]

I've never experienced that problem with the companies I've worked for. Guardsmark was quick to reassign the officers to another account. The only problem is that the hourly rate is less than the site where the account was lost.

[N. A. Corbier]

I watched a client switch guard companies, from an armed contractor (my employer) to an unarmed "warm body" contractor.

The day before the switch over, the branch manager of the unarmed contractor gained access to the security office on post (that was manned by a deputy sheriff, not a security officer, during the day) and "seized" all of the company records. Our post orders, our personnel files (that the idiot "site supervisor" came up with, our company did not authorize him to make personnel files but he did anyway), our site list (idiot "site supervisor" kept them in a desk drawer in a folder marked "site list"), everything.

We had to let go half of the people that were on that post, because there simply weren't places for them. The day of the handoff, the "site superivsor" showed up in his new uniform, to replace the company. It was sad, as his first act with the warm body company was to have the police department issue trespass warnings to our company employees.

[hrdickinson]

And the rest of the industry will continue to struggle to keep up with the post 9/11, progressive, professionally managed and proactive security companies that are becoming the standard. At least in my area.

The big WBSC's will continue to hire and rehire, recycle those who have proven themselves unreliable, and the hiring pool will remain status-quo. Those who are used to being bounced from one contract to another will just get used to that idea instead of seeking professional development, and maybe even other employment with PSC's that have higher standards.

If that's how it is in THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY, from your own point of view, then so be it. Drive-on and continue that aging mission. I'll work on a different side of the fence.

Forgive me if I'm sounding confrontational, I enjoy the dialogue, I'm just not able to type my facial expressions, that of which may be betrayed by the text.

I just said that's the way it is, not that I agree with it. I agree with everything you said in this quote. However, even well managed, proactive companies have to cator to clients to some extent and so long as it does not compromise their standards. Very few (in my opinion) would draw a line in the sand and risk the contract by insisting that an officer stay if the client really wanted him/her off the site. Why not just replace them and reassign them to another contract?

I don't want to be confrontational either but I resent the age reference!

[N. A. Corbier]

I just said that's the way it is, not that I agree with it. I agree with everything you said in this quote. However, even well managed, proactive companies have to cator to clients to some extent and so long as it does not compromise their standards. Very few (in my opinion) would draw a line in the sand and risk the contract by insisting that an officer stay if the client really wanted him/her off the site. Why not just replace them and reassign them to another contract?

I don't want to be confrontational either but I resent the age reference!

When Jimmy says "aging mission," I think he's referring to the "The 1970s mission of observe and report" that Virginia is teaching is outdated. One thing to keep in mind about Jimmy, his state gives security officers police powers, not through private person status, but as law enforcement officers. "Special Police," and "Special Conservators of the Peace" are common in VA.

[Mr. Security]

The big WBSC's will continue to hire and rehire, recycle those who have proven themselves unreliable, and the hiring pool will remain status-quo. Those who are used to being bounced from one contract to another will just get used to that idea instead of seeking professional development, and maybe even other employment with PSC's that have higher standards.

I work for WBS, and the reason I don't look for employment with a PSC that has higher standards is because I don't want to work as an armed guard. I'm not aware of any security companies in this area, other than WBS, that employ guards who are unarmed.

Am I overqualified for my current position? Yes. Unfortunately, my options are limited.

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A., you're typing too fast again. I think you're on my side, but you've just labeled me an age discriminator.

I know you mean well.

Ouch. Sorry. I'll fix mine, you fix your quote.

[aka Bull]

When the contract company supporting our security department changed last year we provided a list of names of contract S/O's working the account that we would like to see stay on the account. All of those officers were offered the chance to change over if they desired, provided they met the new company's hiring standards.

It has been a part of the contract that officers requested to stay on the account can be hired over, regardless of any non-compete agreement that officer may have signed.

Plus there have been many officers who were contract officers that hired on to the in-house department when openings were advertised and they applied and passed the selection process - myself being one of them.

Quality officers are quality officers and if possible no client would want to lose them.