Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No moving to different contracts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by hrdickinson
    ...Here in Texas, legislators finally passed a bill last year that makes the penelty for assualing a private security officer the same as assualting a police officer...
    This measure was passed into law and they have another pending that makes the murder of an on-duty commissioned (armed) security officer a capitol felony. Are you aware of any other pending legislation in our favor? I'm currently at a loss to find anything new.

    Leave a comment:


  • hrdickinson
    replied
    No Moving to different contracts

    JimmyHat and N.A.,

    Thanks for setting me straight, guys. Maybe I'm just a tad sensitive! Seriously, I believe that any change that legitimizes the role of the private security officer and forces their employer to treat them with the respect they deserve is a good thing. That level of respect varies from state to state. Here in Texas, legislators finally passed a bill last year that makes the penelty for assualing a private security officer the same as assualting a police officer. That's progress!

    Please don't intrepret my posts as restatements of a past world. My mission is to help you fellows (and ladies) reach your potential (if I didn't care, I wouldn't be in this forum). I do that by hopefully helping my client companies see the errors of their ways!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by hrdickinson
    ... 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......
    Sometimes, it's just a personality conflict. The officer may be an outstanding worker and held in high esteem by his immediate supervisor. Nevertheless, if the client’s facility manager doesn’t like the officer, he/she is "outta there."

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    I can respect that you choose to work in the capacity that you do. It probably means you're more outstanding in that position based on the fact that you've given consideration to your needs, and seek out a post that facilitates those needs. I have no problem with that at all.

    It's tough to work unarmed, more so than most people give credit for. Your senses and abilities have to be fine-tuned because your escape options are limited. Your wits alone might save your life, rather than a well placed shot-group! Not that unarmed security is any less important, just a little more limited.
    Thank you, Sir.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by hrdickinson
    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.
    Last edited by N. A. Corbier; 05-30-2006, 02:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hrdickinson
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hrdickinson
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackhole
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hrdickinson
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hrdickinson
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X