Clean up your act

This morning, while a large group of pedestrians crossed a potentially dangerous intersection, two security guards were smokin' and jokin' about 75' from where they should have been in order to offer those vulnerable commuters even a modicum of the "service" they were being paid to provide. This has nothing to do with them being "crossing guards." See my post below for a clear context.

At his or her peril, one presumes appropriate training and conscientiousness of said guards. Or any.

And this morning was not unlike any past or future morning, noon, or night ~ as far as most guards are concerned.

Last week I saw a young man taking photos of the train trestle over which the train upon which I was riding was passing. When the train pulled into the station moments later, I mentioned the suspicious activity to the train station security officer, an employee of the Securitas company, who quickly informed me, and I quote: He can take as many pictures as he wants. There's nothing illegal about taking pictures.

After dropping a sincere but muffled F-bomb, I jumped in my truck to see if I could find the suspicious character, but he was nowhere to be found when I got there.

No, there is nothing illegal in taking pictures. But that doesn't make it right in the sense that it's inherently innocent.

There was no specific prohibition against box-cutters on planes on the morning of 11 September '01. There should have been.

In my view, the people responsible for those attacks, other than the jihadists themselves, were the security officers and supervisors at the search/boarding gates at Logan, Dulles, and Newark airports. Certainly, security officers found box-cutters in luggage and pockets before that and asked for clarification from their bosses as to whether those items were permissible on-board a plane. And somewhere along the line those supervisors said it was okay. So, it became SOP to just let people with box-cutters onto any plane they wanted to catch... or crash.

Were there other contributing factors? Sure. But the last line of defense blew it. Big time. Airport security and "management" said it was okay to bring deadly weapons onto an aircraft.

You can find still today great treatises in security publications on this or that new faux protection epiphany, but you won't find anyone waving the mea culpa flag. You won't find any security company or leader chargin' up the hills of avarice to slay the dragons of complacency and incompetence.

In fact, if you read the promotional material of many security companies, you will likely find some mention of the "tragedy of 9/11" within the first paragraph. After that, you may see a brief platitude informing you that that company, and only that company, can provide you with the "best", the security you surely "deserve."

As if there is no discernable nexus between the state of contract security then and now and the unnecessary, flaming, horrible deaths of that day.

The word "deserve" is so ubiquitous in today's advertising market.

In life, we deserve what we pay for in sweat, blood, and money. And, the sad fact is that we're getting really crummy service.

This study shows alarming findings in NYC but those conclusions can be reasonably extrapolated out from there to include security where you live.

Shareholder profit and executive pay/bonuses are the number one priority when security companies do anything, from hiring, to training, to pay and benefits. This larceny goes on unabated and unabashedly as they screw over their employees and their customers, daily.

Misrepresenting the quality of their guards and management capability.
"All our guards have "state-required training." No, they don't. Most guards have half of their training done in the office before they get a uniform and assignment and then the other training, which is supposed to be on the job, is never done because there is so little effective management. At best, most security officers have only about half the required training, if they have any at all.

If they tell you anything about their management, it is probably to claim their guards are checked at least once a shift by a "supervisor."

Not really. Given the distance between posts and the number per shift, a real supervisor can only make it to 8-10 separate posts in an 8-hour shift. That's if he or she wants to spend any real time with the guard, addressing the particular needs of a particular guard in both job and personal contexts, and the promised a/o required on-the-job training.

But they don't want to spend the time because there's no money in it, so they don't. It would cost the security company way too much money to hire a supervisor for every 10 guards, so they don't. Instead, what many companies do is hire a patrol officer who does nothing but drive from post to post making notations that he's been at each place, merely to satisfy the contractual requirement for a supervisory visit per shift, if there is such a clause in the contract. That patrol officer is not a supervisor. Basically he gives potty-breaks, if necessary. The supervisor hangs around the office and only responds to "big" issues, such as when the cops demand a security supervisor at a crime scene in order to find out from "management" why that darn guard screwed up so bad.

Signing you up for services they know they probably won't be able to provide you.
If a company contracts for a patrol officer to come by X number of times per night, guess who's getting ripped off? This is a real cash-cow for security companies. All they have to do is say they tried to get all the required checks in and they're pretty much in the clear. The contract language is usually so ambiguous that there's no use in a customer complaining when it's discovered that the patrols haven't been around in three nights.

Taking your money for certain services they promote but know beforehand they will not provide, though specifically requested and paid for.
I know for a drop-dead fact that many security companies will provide an armed officer, at customer request, and then privately tell the armed guard he's fired if the pistol ever comes out of the holster ~ it's just a decoration. So, the customer is being ripped off in at least one way: paying extra money per month for an armed response they will not receive when/if it becomes necessary.

So, the point again is that it's not up to the cops or security to protect you. They either don't have to or won't want to... or both.

It's up to you to be unerschrocken all the time. Security will not protect you. They don't have to and they know it.

But is there something you can do other than taking responsibility for your own safety? Sure. If security screws up, let management know. I don't mean let the security supervisor know if a security officer screws up. I mean let the people who actually pay the bill know. If the guards at the mall are not doing their job, let mall management know. Right away.

If you're responsible for managing the security contract at work; there are things you can do, things you should ask before you sign a service contract with any security company, regardless of name or reputation.

This is a good starting point for those interested in acquiring a/o maintaining security services.

Stay away from security companies who offer you a free survey or assessment of your security "needs." Here's what will happen:

They will send over their hot-shot "expert" who may be nothing more than a salesman with a few memorized lines about how bad your security is, whether it is or not.

If you don't have security, they will recommend placement of their guards on your premises ASAP, even though it is entirely possible that you can achieve an adequate level of protection by just cutting back the grass and bushes and installing CCTV.

If you already have security, they'll tell you how much better their service is and how much money you will save by contracting with them.

Two words: Bull. Shit.

While it's true that most if not all businesses need a yearly security review, they should never be done by a company with any connection to the physical security field, whether they provide people or technology. The assessment must be done by an impartial, objective professional.

And here's a shameless plug: if you need an assessment, drop me a line here and we can arrange something that's reasonable and thorough. I have no guards to send you, nor equipment to unload.

Comments

[Undaunted]

Thanks, knight_308.

I believe you're right; it would have been better had they fought the attackers. But I'm not aware of any evidence that they knew they were going to be crashed into buildings instead of being the object of negotiations at some distant, unplanned site. Flight 93 figured out what was going on and resisted, but the others did not know.

So, it seems to me that rules strictly prohibiting any edged weapon should have and could have been in place and enforced and, maybe, the hijackings would not have occurred at all.

And I agree, too, that people need to learn to take care of themselves and be permitted to be prepared in terms of weapons.

[knight_308]

Found you via your post on OCDO. I have to admit that this sentence:

There was no specific prohibition against box-cutters on planes on the morning of 11 September '01. There should have been.

...has turned me off immediately. What was really necessary was for the people on those planes to stand up and take out the attackers. I traveled a lot in the years leading up to 9/11 and the year after. All the pointless rules about knives and liquids and everything else have killed any desire I might have to fly somewhere.

People need to learn to take care of themselves and not rely on some touchy-feely illusion of security to make them feel better. I'd rather be able to have the tools (including knives, firearms, etc) to be able to put up a fight than to depend on a demonstrably flawed system that only keeps such things out of the hands of the law abiding.