Posted on 08/06/2004 6:53:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
The terror alerts announced over the last week by the Department of Homeland Security have reinforced a crucial reality: There are clear and present threats against a variety of private sector targets. Many of our country’s financial institutions, chemical plants, oil refineries, and nuclear facilities are owned and/or operated by private enterprises.
Although during these times of heightened security these high risk targets’ safekeeping may be enhanced by law enforcement, many times the front line safety of these important parts of nation’s infrastructure is the primary responsibility of private security.
An article posted on USATODAY.com, “Private Security Guards Are Homeland’s Weak Link,” has put a sharp focus on many of the day-to-day issues that private security must cope with.
This compelling article pointed out many of the difficulties, troubles and challenges facing the private security industry today. It spotlighted, for example, the alarming fact that many of our country’s one million-plus security officers are unlicensed, untrained (or poorly trained) and not subject to background checks.
The article also highlighted the distressing reality that the private security officer business is hallmarked, in general, by high turnover, low pay and few benefits.
With the increasing demand for private security, some firms are just looking for “warm bodies” to fill their uniforms. Especially in this day and age, with the many threats we must face, this is utterly outrageous.
What steps can be reasonably taken to help professionalize and improve our nation’s current state of private security?
Here are some thoughts:
Rent-A-Cops: I abhor that unfounded term to describe security guards. Security officers should be a well-trained deterrent with enhanced skills to observe, report, and when possible, prevent improper activity at their assigned posts within the limits of the law. A security officer is not a law enforcement officer, and they are surely not a “rent-a-cop.”
Image: A related issue is the public’s image of security officers. How many of us have seen security guards portrayed on TV and in movies as stupid, lazy and even criminals themselves? The stereotype of a sleeping security guard wearing a grubby uniform, with an opened lunchbox by his side, has become ubiquitous in our society. This dubious image could change by attracting the right people into the private security business, and by having them set the example of professionalism and integrity.
Career: Being a professional security officer, especially in our post September 11, 2001 world, should be a viable career choice. The job of security officer should not just be the purview of the semi-retired, part-timers and students. With proper compensation, adequate benefits, sufficient training and stimulating advancement prospects, many individuals may find job of a security officer a highly attractive career option.
Pay: According the USATODAY.com article, in the year 2000, private security guards earned an average of $17,570 annually, and many leave within months of being hired. And, don’t forget that a security guard is considered a high risk job for workplace violence according to government statistics. Sadly, each and every year, a few security officers make the ultimate sacrifice by being murdered in the line of duty. Being a security guard for eight bucks or so an hour doesn’t sound like such a great deal, does it?
Background Checks: The proper background checks should be fully completed before a security officer is assigned to their post. I believe this is just common sense, and the right thing to do.
Training: Training ought to be in two parts. First, all security guards should be given a standardized training course, a sort of “security academy” in which all the basics are covered such as security procedures, emergency drills, first-aid, report writing, etc. Second, training should additionally cover areas specific to the security guard’s post. Periodic updates and retraining should be integrated into the security officer’s work schedule.
Equipment: Having the right equipment to do one’s job is essential. I have observed, regrettably, many security guards wearing uniforms that are a size or two too small or large, carrying broken flashlights, and using malfunctioning radios. How can a security officer be expected to have dignity in his job when his employer does not even care enough to issue the proper and functioning equipment and supplies? All security guards should be issued the suitable equipment to do their intrinsically risky jobs in as safe and proficient a manner as reasonably possible. In addition, the issuing of body armor should be carefully considered, especially to those security guards working “higher risk” details.
Professionalism: Security officers should be professionals in their field, and therefore, treated as such. Unfortunately, I have seen - especially in certain industries - managers who viewed a security guard as an extra pair of hands to do non-security duties, such as maintenance and housekeeping.
How would that manager explain that while a security officer was busy unplugging a toilet, a trespasser entered the property and assaulted a visitor or employee?
Simply put, security guards should be limited to security-related duties.
Pride: I think the word “pride” sums it all up. If pride was shared by all involved in private security, from the security officer to the employer, the level of professionalism would immediately be enhanced. If one has pride in what they do, they will do a better job.
My Final Thoughts: There are already many proficient and capable people in the security industry. We must find the proper ways to retain and motivate these fine folks, while at the same time, working to attract additional qualified people to their ranks.
Like they say in the movie “A Field Of Dreams,” if you build it, they will come. I believe the same theory will hold true for the private security industry.
If security management makes the effort in time, resources and funds to “build” a better security officer, the public will come to demand this new breed of skilled security guard. Only then, in time, will private security shift from being an industry of many contracts being awarded to the “lowest bidder,” to one which is a viable and appealing career option for the well-trained, well-paid and respected security professional.
Of course, the mainstream press believes Kerry's lapdog Dean who says the whole concept of homeland security is a farce. Or Daschle's idea that expanding the federal government is the answer to every problem.
I have an idea! Let's fire them all, create a huge new government bureaucracy and hire them all back at $14 an hour!
This article hits it dead on - private security is an enormously important job in the post 9/11 world, and I personally know many who consider it to be a profession.
The key is to give more responsibility and higher pay to the people we are entrusting with guarding the nation's facilities. I know this works, because I've seen it happen with my husband's company. He in the upper management, and he's out hiring his people personally right now - for more than the going rate. The real lynchpin of the whole thing is to dress them like professionals, treat them like professionals, and pay them like professionals. They know that if they act like professionals, they have a job. If they don't, someone else will have their job - it's that important. As a result, they act like professionals, and they take their job seriously. A living wage and a chance at moving up in the ranks makes a big difference too.
He gets what he wants from his folks, but the hiring process is tedious. He's been out for a week now trying to staff two trucking yards in California, and he won't just take a warm body - the people he hires have to be willing to do more than just sit in a booth. He treats it like the fate of the nation's roadways depends on it. And maybe it does.
When you let your workers know they are important to you, they work like it's important to them.
Doesn't even happen over at TSA. I heard some middle management griping when the upper execs getting mad at them while fully trained linemen gets cut after three months working because they failed a background check, ya then have to start all over again with a newbie. Hope the background goes through...
I do know some guards working ComED (nuke and coal) plants. They watch their butts just as cautiously as we do. Security is the first defense, yet the first to be cut when money is tight.
Bingo."but no one in our company or managment knows security" Sounds like all 3 companies I've worked for.Like the manager who wondered why I wanted breakaway neckties for my subordinates.And employee resentment? Pre-9/11, we were wet food stamps. Now they act like we're SEALS.We have training materials from the EIGHTIES still in use! And some of it was written by the former contractor.
Hey, ping me if you come across any security threads (or any good threads), will ya?
The article deserves to be read in it's entirety. If the customer wants cutting-edge competence and espirit AND is willing to pay accordingly then that's what they will get.
I keep thinking of a Sixty Minutes piece from about seven years ago about Israeli airport security. Let me tell you it was incredible just how good these guys had to be and how ruthlessly they were trained, tested and periodically audited without their knowledge. You can be damn well certain they were being paid more than burger-flippin' wages. If there's a market willing to ante up for that level of expertise then you can be certain our great capitalist engine will quickly supply that demand but NOT before.
As for the democrats, it is restating the obvious that when old John Effin' bloviates about his dedication to Homeland Security he really means ladling out the oink, oink.
No sweat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.