Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do most Security Companies that hire you, do they pay for your training?

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

  • Do most Security Companies that hire you, do they pay for your training?

    I am currently waiting for my guard card, then I have to complete the raminder of my 40hrs. After that I have firearm classes to take. When I find a security company, will they pay for other types of training? For example tear gas/pepper spray, baton, handcuffs, etc.

  • #2
    Some do and some don't. Once you become certified as a Security Officer or with the use of MACE, PATH Handcuffing or any other, it is YOU that become certified. This means that it goes with you and not the company. Due to this some companies will require officers to pay for their own training or perhaps require the officer to pay the company back for training provided.
    www.oramsecurity.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Our initial security training is unpaid. Any following training is paid for and we are paid wages to do the training.
      "Alright guys listen up, ya'll have probably heard this before, Jackson vs. Securiplex corporation; I am a private security officer, I have no State or governmental authority. I stand as an ordinary citizen. I have no right to; detain, interrogate or otherwise interfere with your personal property-... basically all that means is I'm a cop."-Officer Ernie
      "The Curve" 1998

      Comment


      • #4
        Some companies pay for training and some do not. It depends upon company norm. They actually provide you training at the initial level and hence help you to get trained which aid in get your hands on more remuneration.
        Bodyguard Security Services
        Security Guards Melbourne
        Security Crowd Control

        Comment


        • #5
          Yea the company that I might be working for I called them and I believe we have to pay for our training. Kinda sucks because I dont have that much money. So all I have is my guard card, no baton or mace, or anything. So I hope that doesnt back fire on me.

          Comment


          • #6
            The company I just started with does kinda pay for the training. When they book the training session with a certified teacher they cover 50% of the cost of the CTSS course. Not only that I am paid to go to the class as if it was a shift of work.

            I am waiting for this class as I believe that I could benifit from it alot. AND I WANT MY HANDCUFFS!!!...

            Unfortuantly I wont be able to carry a baton due to company policy. However I have bought a couple for those just in case moments ( STATING THIS NOW I DONT CARRY THE BATON AT WORK)
            "The difference between being a coward and a hero is not whether you're scared.....it's what you do while you're scared."

            Comment


            • #7
              The company I work for does 50-50. They take my half out of our paychecks, spread over three checks, so it's not a big hit. We also sign a promise not to leave for at least six months, or the other half will have to be paid back (Seems fair to me. I get to keep the training.) We were paid for the time.

              There is talk of aditional training (arrest, OC spray, handcuff, firearms, etc). That will most likely be handled the same way.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CajunBass View Post
                The company I work for does 50-50. They take my half out of our paychecks, spread over three checks, so it's not a big hit. We also sign a promise not to leave for at least six months, or the other half will have to be paid back (Seems fair to me. I get to keep the training.) We were paid for the time.

                There is talk of aditional training (arrest, OC spray, handcuff, firearms, etc). That will most likely be handled the same way.
                This company does security for other malls as well. The guards all carry mace, handcuffs, batons, etc. The only thing I have not seen is firearm.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Heathen1990 View Post
                  This company does security for other malls as well. The guards all carry mace, handcuffs, batons, etc. The only thing I have not seen is firearm.
                  Mall security is usually unarmed, and I'm a little surprised they're carrying batons. I'd be more inclined to have officers who were armed (trained and certified, of course) than to let them carry batons. IMHO, the weapon that is the most likely to be used inappropriately is not the firearm, but the baton.
                  Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-21-2011, 12:24 PM.
                  "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                  "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                  "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                  "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                    Mall security is usually unarmed, and I'm a little surprised they're carrying batons. I'd be more inclined to have officers who were armed (trained and certified, of course) than to let them carry batons. IMHO, the weapon that is the most likely to be used inappropriately is not the firearm, but the baton.
                    Mall security is, unfortunately, often willing to restrict the equipment their guards use so as not to offend customers' delicate sensibilities. If a guard is carrying an expandable baton it probably isn't going to be obvious to others since many people don't quickly recognize a collapsed baton, even it it's in an "open holster". If a guard is carrying a firearm, though, it is going to be a lot more obvious to onlookers, since we all know what a gun looks like.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                      Mall security is usually unarmed, and I'm a little surprised they're carrying batons. I'd be more inclined to have officers who were armed (trained and certified, of course) than to let them carry batons. IMHO, the weapon that is the most likely to be used inappropriately is not the firearm, but the baton.
                      You can tell how aggressive the mall management is by watching their guards and their equipment. There's a private company here that arms all the guards with everything but a gun. They have 3 high rise buildings with public access (skyway and retail shops), and a Fortune 50 tenant in one, and Fortune 500s in the others.

                      They are EXTREMELY aggressive, carry batons, and have done some really stupid things. One was ordering a Fortune 50 employee who was on break to leave the building where he was employed. $TENANT was displeased and sent a senior manager down, who met with the property manager, and some screaming went on. In the middle of the retail tenant's store.

                      The employee who was on break made the horrible mistake of holding a book up to his face. The guard believed he was asleep or otherwise attempting to conceal his face, and ordered him to leave. When he said, "But why," he was threatened with immediate arrest while other employees started calling on their cell phones... Whoops.
                      Some Kind of Commando Leader

                      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bigshotceo View Post
                        Mall security is, unfortunately, often willing to restrict the equipment their guards use so as not to offend customers' delicate sensibilities. If a guard is carrying an expandable baton it probably isn't going to be obvious to others since many people don't quickly recognize a collapsed baton, even it it's in an "open holster". If a guard is carrying a firearm, though, it is going to be a lot more obvious to onlookers, since we all know what a gun looks like.
                        If I understand you correctly, your comment seems to imply a conclusion: "And we all know that customers are put off by seeing a firearm". The fact that you didn't even need to say it demonstrates just how embedded this bit of "folk wisdom" (or, more accurately, "tribal fear") is in our professional lore.

                        I am making this observation because I just saw it in another context. The latest issue of Security Management magazine (published by ASIS) - page 56:

                        "Farina (a security consultant) says he's seeing a slight uptick in the use of armed guards in the hotels he works with, but he notes that hotels are still reluctant to use this approach for fear of putting off patrons."

                        And just a moment later, we have one of the silliest objections to armed security from Anthony DiSalvatore, director of security for the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas: "If SWAT comes on the property, in event of an active shooter or something to that effect, if they see someone with a firearm they really can't take the chance to process that and see if that's a good guy or a bad guy. Their aim is to stop the event."

                        There are so many things wrong with Mr. DiSalvatore's argument, both in its predicates and its conclusions, that one scarcely knows where to begin.

                        However, it did get me thinking about a methodology in an unrelated field (health care) that has its own roots in process engineering. It's called "evidence-based medicine". A very rough summary of evidence-based medicine can be surmised from its name: You gather objective evidence about what works (in treating a patient), and then you do that.

                        Now, we (especially we laymen) undoubtedly have assumed that this was what doctors have always done - at least, since the dawn of the Scientific Method. Not so. The field of medicine has been rife with numerous bits of "folk wisdom" that have gone unchallenged, have been passed down from one generation of doctors to the next, etc. These beliefs amount to dogma, and they can be very "sticky" within an occupational culture - meaning, quite resistant to questioning and even to contrary proof.

                        What's more, there are always NEW dogmas that are not based on good science, and yet they spread through the medical community like a Miley Cyrus nude photo on Facebook. Some observers have suggested that medicine itself is not yet a science, and may never be, but the emergence of evidence-based medicine is a concerted effort to move it in that direction. "If you have a patient with this (disease), you treat them with that (medication)" is now increasingly being met with "On what evidence do you base that assertion?"...and "How do you know that is the best treatment, out of the several that are available?"...and many other questions.

                        Is our own profession sufficiently evidence-based? I think we all know the answer to that question. The field of security is riddled with "folk wisdom" for which the questioning individual can search in vain for any evidence that supports it.

                        For instance, I was in a store the other day that had an armed officer at the entrance. Very nicely uniformed, and obviously armed.

                        Despite this "unwelcoming vision" (as we are told), the place was packed. While I watched, customers from time to time came up to the officer, asked for information, and then went on about their business without appearing to suffer from any ill effects. At one point, he seemed to say something humorous to an older lady and she actually laughed. (No doubt, because she was afraid he'd shoot her if she didn't laugh.)

                        Over the half-hour or so that I intermittently observed this officer while my wife was "doing her thing", I failed to see a single customer who seemed to be suffering from an attack of the vapors after encountering this officer (and, presumably, seeing his weapon), and I failed to see a single customer enter the store who, on being met with this terrifying sight, shrieked and ran back out the door, taking their business with them. ALL I SAW WERE EXACTLY THE SAME PERFECTLY NORMAL INTERACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE IF THE OFFICER HAD BEEN UNARMED. There were no villagers running in fear from Frankenstein's monster...and if the villagers were "uncomfortable" they sure didn't show it. Or maybe they showed it by loading up their carts and spending their money hand over fist. "Quick, Martha. Spend everything we've got, or else he might shoot us!"

                        Right.

                        Of course, this one experience isn't evidence either, but I have had enough others of a similar nature to cause me to say "Show me the evidence" whenever so-called security "experts" trot out the tired old assertion that armed officers "drive customers away". And I could extend this skepticism to dozens of other bits of security dogma. It's time we started to ask ourselves some questions - and demand that the answers be based on facts that have been properly demonstrated by using objective methods of proof, not mere dogma, assumptions, assertions, guesses, folklore, beliefs or fairy tales.

                        How do we KNOW that armed officers "make people uncomfortable"? And if they do, how do we KNOW that armed officers don't make other people feel MORE comfortable (safer)? Is our own reluctance to use armed officers where the threat profile clearly indicates they are needed being driven by the wrong considerations? Does it contribute to the fact that the sight of an armed officer is "unusual", when in fact it should be fairly common? Neuroscience has proven that people become acclimated to, and then begin to ignore, things in their environment that they see all the time. They NOTICE whatever is unusual. So, are we, in effect, just making weapons all the more noticeable because we don't deploy them wherever, whenever and as appropriately as we should? We don't know the answers because we haven't gathered the evidence.
                        Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-21-2011, 08:03 PM.
                        "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                        "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                        "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                        "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                          If I understand you correctly, your comment seems to imply a conclusion: "And we all know that customers are put off by seeing a firearm". The fact that you didn't even need to say it demonstrates just how embedded this bit of "folk wisdom" (or, more accurately, "tribal fear") is in our professional lore.

                          I am making this observation because I just saw it in another context. The latest issue of Security Management magazine (published by ASIS) - page 56:

                          "Farina (a security consultant) says he's seeing a slight uptick in the use of armed guards in the hotels he works with, but he notes that hotels are still reluctant to use this approach for fear of putting off patrons."

                          And just a moment later, we have one of the silliest objections to armed security from Anthony DiSalvatore, director of security for the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas: "If SWAT comes on the property, in event of an active shooter or something to that effect, if they see someone with a firearm they really can't take the chance to process that and see if that's a good guy or a bad guy. Their aim is to stop the event."

                          There are so many things wrong with Mr. DiSalvatore's argument, both in its predicates and its conclusions, that one scarcely knows where to begin.

                          However, it did get me thinking about a methodology in an unrelated field (health care) that has its own roots in process engineering. It's called "evidence-based medicine". A very rough summary of evidence-based medicine can be surmised from its name: You gather objective evidence about what works (in treating a patient), and then you do that.

                          Now, we (especially we laymen) undoubtedly have assumed that this was what doctors have always done - at least, since the dawn of the Scientific Method. Not so. The field of medicine has been rife with numerous bits of "folk wisdom" that have gone unchallenged, have been passed down from one generation of doctors to the next, etc. These beliefs amount to dogma, and they can be very "sticky" within an occupational culture - meaning, quite resistant to questioning and even to contrary proof.

                          What's more, there are always NEW dogmas that are not based on good science, and yet they spread through the medical community like a Miley Cyrus nude photo on Facebook. Some observers have suggested that medicine itself is not yet a science, and may never be, but the emergence of evidence-based medicine is a concerted effort to move it in that direction. "If you have a patient with this (disease), you treat them with that (medication)" is now increasingly being met with "On what evidence do you base that assertion?"...and "How do you know that is the best treatment, out of the several that are available?"...and many other questions.

                          Is our own profession sufficiently evidence-based? I think we all know the answer to that question. The field of security is riddled with "folk wisdom" for which the questioning individual can search in vain for any evidence that supports it.

                          For instance, I was in a store the other day that had an armed officer at the entrance. Very nicely uniformed, and obviously armed.

                          Despite this "unwelcoming vision" (as we are told), the place was packed. While I watched, customers from time to time came up to the officer, asked for information, and then went on about their business without appearing to suffer from any ill effects. At one point, he seemed to say something humorous to an older lady and she actually laughed. (No doubt, because she was afraid he'd shoot her if she didn't laugh.)

                          Over the half-hour or so that I intermittently observed this officer while my wife was "doing her thing", I failed to see a single customer who seemed to be suffering from an attack of the vapors after encountering this officer (and, presumably, seeing his weapon), and I failed to see a single customer enter the store who, on being met with this terrifying sight, shrieked and ran back out the door, taking their business with them. ALL I SAW WERE EXACTLY THE SAME PERFECTLY NORMAL INTERACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE IF THE OFFICER HAD BEEN UNARMED. There were no villagers running in fear from Frankenstein's monster...and if the villagers were "uncomfortable" they sure didn't show it. Or maybe they showed it by loading up their carts and spending their money hand over fist. "Quick, Martha. Spend everything we've got, or else he might shoot us!"

                          Right.

                          Of course, this one experience isn't evidence either, but I have had enough others of a similar nature to cause me to say "Show me the evidence" whenever so-called security "experts" trot out the tired old assertion that armed officers "drive customers away". And I could extend this skepticism to dozens of other bits of security dogma. It's time we started to ask ourselves some questions - and demand that the answers be based on facts that have been properly demonstrated by using objective methods of proof, not mere dogma, assumptions, assertions, guesses, folklore, beliefs or fairy tales.
                          To this day hotels still don't want high profile security. In Montreal there is not 1 hoel that still has security, that has uniformed security. Some are completely plainclothed. Others wear name tags but none wear police style uniforms. There is still this feeling that if guests see uniformed security they will think the hotel is unsafe Along the same lines, most hotels will not put cameras in the hallways of the hotels even though they would be a good tool in protecting the guests & especially in prptecting the hotel from some guests
                          I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                          Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            When I turn 21 I plan on getting everything taken care of to own a handgun then I plan on taking firearms courses to carry on duty. Some guards that carry armed that I have talked to on another forum have said they haven't had to use the firearm. But I do not see to feel unease about seeing an armed guard. Unless you plan on stealing or doing something bad. If not then why be worried if you see an armed guard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Heathen1990 View Post
                              When I turn 21 I plan on getting everything taken care of to own a handgun then I plan on taking firearms courses to carry on duty. Some guards that carry armed that I have talked to on another forum have said they haven't had to use the firearm. But I do not see to feel unease about seeing an armed guard. Unless you plan on stealing or doing something bad. If not then why be worried if you see an armed guard.
                              Not to be personal, but you're coming across to me as someone who is overly fascinated with firearms, or maybe as someone who has some "magical thinking" about carrying a gun.

                              Just sayin'....
                              Last edited by SecTrainer; 02-22-2011, 07:38 AM.
                              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                              Comment

                              300x250

                              Collapse

                              Mid 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Super Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X