I don't believe you

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 5:58 pm

I don't believe no one has yet thrown their toys out their pram in this particular forum.

I'm going to turn up the heat and mention the 'T' word - TRAINING

That has not come as a suprise to anyone but this will..

The SIA has mentioned that certain educational and training standards will have to met, in addition to other criteria, before manned guarding personnel in the private security industry can obtain a licence.
My own view is that, if the government wants to regulate the industry, they should cough up some money for additional security officer training.
I don't think it should be left entirely to the employers to foot the bill, though ultimately their clients will bear the brunt of the extra costs.

In fact, seeing as how Brussels wants us to be more like the rest of the EU,they should do something they are not used to - put their money where their mouthpieces are!

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:57 am

The SIA are being rather obtruse in that they won't give specific details to answer your questions.
I presume this is down to the fact that they either haven't worked out the exact criteria yet or are simply trying to avoid speculation by making any comment until their own official announcement.

I would presume that as with the Door Supervisors licencing criteria for training, the SIA will look at exisiting training/ qualifications for manned guarding personnel and publish a list of existing qualifications which may, or may not, be considered as an acceptable qualification toward the educational aspect of the licencing criteria.

This also presents additional problems. I am not aware of any current training courses for security personnel that include conflict management so either the SIA will accept some qualifications such as Prof Guard III with the caveat that they must undergo seperate conflict management training or else, all the available training within the industry from the likes of SITO etc will be made completely redundant.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:02 pm

Evenin' all,

OK John, Toys out the Pram time.

You are absolutely correct in saying the SIA should cough up.
IMO the bulk of the funds should be spent weeding out the pi$$ poor, barely legal (if at all) 'Security' companies that employ 'Guards' (ha ha) that are:

Perm any of the below.

On the dole
Ex Cons
Assylum seekers
Have the IQ of ear wax
wRigHT rEpOtrs LYke ThiSS (Usually in Crayon)
Cannot speak a word of English.

These 'Companies' usually supply no equipment and their idea of a control room is a 40 year old Portakabin or converted Caravan salvaged from Russia at the time of the fall of St Petersburgh.

We ALL know who they are.

Getting rid of the dregs will create a huge demand for the professional Security Officer and force clients to pay a decent rate in order to have an officer on site at all.

For far too long has the security industry suffered a poor reputation.

It's time for change.

(Steps down from soap box and quietly exits forum)

Keep safe,

Mikey.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:20 pm

Get back on that soap-box because people are getting a bit sick of me using it Wink

We have heard all the Catch 22 scenario's a millon times and we are looking for action rather than vague promises of 'policing the industry' etc.

A short time ago, we were contacted by a major financial institution who asked us to recommend a private security company for a 1000 hour+ contract. We were asked to set the service level agreement, which we did and only one Company was brave enough to put in a tender.
We heard that the company had a major headache setting things up but, 4 months on, everyone is saying how sweet things are running. The Officers have good pay and conditions (yes we asked the financial institution to provide some 'bits and pieces' for the Officers), there has been NO sickness, no lateness, a professional and courteous security staff and the 'institution' is over the moon - so is the security company because they have noticed less sickness and lateness overall because thier staff are hoping to get on the 'waiting list' to work on this contract.

Any way, I digress (as usual). Yes, we need to get rid of the chaff from the wheat and even the wheat have room for improvement by providing better terms and conditions of employment, not just better pay.
I was rooting through the Job Centre website the other week and could not believe people are still advertising for staff for 14 hour+ shifts. The JC pulled these ads after we complained.

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:12 pm

I still believe their should be a tiered system for Security Officers. There should be a basic level of training that allows them to do their job safely and effectively and this is then graded at a pay scale. Each additional course taken ups them a grade and such the wage. Jobs and contracts are offered for X amount of officers on Y grade. This would bring continuity throughout the Industry and would put the emphasis on the client as to the sort of cover they would like.

The tendering process would then allow for the Security Companies to set their costs to a more accurate degree. Of course when this happens I shall take annual leave and finally make that trip to the end of the rainbow to get my pot of gold.

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:45 am

Leon i couldn't agree more, and this all ties in very neatly with my thought on the whole licensing fiasco. Like I expressed in a post to another forum, the industry needs nationally recognised training courses for Each and every discipline that the industry encompasses (retail, mobile, industrial, consultancy, risk assessment, commercial, dog handling, executive protection, etc, etc, etc…) at the very least. On top of this there need to be a defined model for levels of knowledge/skill for grades of officer (S/O, Senior S/O, control room operator, Control room Manager, Team Leader, Site Manager.. etc, etc, etc….) once this is in place then and only then, will we be able to effectively produce an industry standard pace scale guide document and weed out the Chaff as you eloquently put it John. We need to raise the quality of the service that is provided industry wide to develop the professional image and respect that we all so desperately want. I suggest that the SIA make the license fee a much smaller amount for the 3 year period say £50, then introduce a set of training programmes that are charged to the companies employing the officers or the individuals the selves, again for a smaller fee again say £50 per module that way we create a possible career path for the officers and increase the standards of knowledge throughout the industry. Exams could be retaken every 2 – 3 years or as legislation changes.

I believe in regulation of the industry whole-heartedly, but feel the SIA is letting down the officer on the beat badly with the way they intend to do it. Sad

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:47 pm

I thoroughly agree with all the points raised, regarding teired licensing. A basic license for a small fee, then upgrades and add on's for each area and level of the industry that you wish to work in. All makes perfect sense. It's used for driving, the medical professions and many others so why not for us?
As I understand it the SIA is here to regulate the industry and to represent it. So why does it seem they do not listen to those on the ground? I've lost count of how many times I've read, with regard to questions to the SIA, "still awaiting a reply"!
It leaves me wondering would it be possible give them an invite to look at these forums and post their replies direct? Or maybe even invite them to a net meeting where we can all get together and air our concerns and questions. Maybe they would be able to get their ideas and reasoning across to us better in a (inter)face to (inter)face chat. What do you think Leon? Would they go for it? Would it be possible?

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:03 pm

I have thought long and hard to see if there are any alternatives to a tiered licencing system and I have failed to come up with a viable alternative.
I'm going to borrow from your post Geeza and put forward a recommendation of a system similar to our driving licence groups.

So on a licenced operatives badge it would have something like;
Licenced Grade: A+, C and G

Where A= Basic Manned Guarding
A+ = A plus Fire and First Aid
B = something else
C = A plus Retail Security
C+ = C plus Supervisory Traning
Etc.

This would make it so much easier for companies to advertise for personnel with specific qualifications and also make it much easier to set Grade pay levels to encourage everyone to get on the training bus.

Also, it makes it eaier for clients to specify, "we want personnel of a minimum Grade A+".

To cover another point regarding SIA accessing the site and joining us on an Open Chat day. Easily arranged and look forward to Leons input.

With regard to training, we are devloping our own e_Learning training courses for members and employees of companies who contribute to the course materials.
At the moment, these courses will not be recognised as a formal qualification but we do intend to certificate these ourselves 'In-House' as the content will be so good.
I'm hoping to have a demo set up for the end of the month and I'm sure if I over run, someone will remind me Wink

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:03 pm

Gentlemen I totally agree on every point raised has any one thought about prior APL
ANY COMMENTS
BIGYIN

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:01 pm

Good Evening all

I have just purchased the ifpo book from amazon and looking through it the training from that is far superior than the sito outdated training so why cant the ifpo training become the new BJT training as it really is far superior

I spoke to the SIA Again today re the training for security officers to be honest I dont think they have thought the required training through I asked the lady who answered the phone can you please tell me why you consider the BJT Training sufficient to exempt students from parts of the exams she could not answer me
also once more asked about close protection training what will be considered sufficient would training from abroad ie AMERICA BE GOOD ENOUGH also would my certifications from AMERICA be considered exempt from the training and I asked the lady if not would any part of my training be classed as exempt once again she could not answer me
can anyone give me an idea who can give me the answers
as the SIA CANT OR WONT
bigyin
any comments

Newbie Joined: Oct 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Location: York

The SIA in its present form is nothing short of a sales organisation. It is selling the concept of licensing to all across the industry. However why the legislation has not been ammended to include in house security staff is, as a manager, beyond belief. When is the Goverment going to make a decision one way or another.
The SIA require me to hold THREE separate licences.

As for SITO they very nearly lost their monopoly on industry training, if it where not for the input of certain powerful bodies this would have been so.
SITO charges are excessive and unjustified when the same training at a much higher standard of presentation is available elsewhere.

Personally I belive that the whole set up is a misguided badly run disorganised arrangement which will ultimately have to be totally rehashed.

And where does that leave the poor old security officer? Another training requirement, another direction, more checks. More money? I think not.
3 years ago security providers began increasing charges to their customers on the back of proposed changes, did they pass that on in wage rises NO. Now as a customer I am looking at a futher increase of up to 30%, to cover increased training costs by my manned guarding supplier, who will be charging their officers for the licence fee.

Rant over, soapbox stowed back in the sopabox store!

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

bigyin, jossman;

the reason the training is the way it is is because the people who advised the sia + sito on the licensing qualification training were the manned guarding industry on the whole, an expert panel drawn up of training managers etc.

who is the biggest part of the manned guarding industry? its all the big names we all know and loathe who do nothing for quality/service.

the sia are not a commercial organisation, they are a government legislative monitoring/enforcement body. after the rollouts they are not making money for anyone. they went out to the industry and got the input from the industry, which is what put the state of training where it is now.

the ones to blame are the ones who made up the manned guarding/loss prevention expert panel under sito/the sia.

ding!

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:38 pm

Quote:

the reason the training is the way it is is because the people who advised the sia + sito on the licensing qualification training were the manned guarding industry on the whole, an expert panel drawn up of training managers etc.

Who were these "So called experts"

Quote:

they went out to the industry and got the input from the industry

Did they really !!!!!!!!!

Hmm.......I wonder.

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

corsec,

the expert panel thaty would have devised the national occupational standards to which the BJT is based would have been drawn from the mainstream security companies.

pluck a big name out of the hat, im sure they had a training manager there.

forgive my sounding sarcastic but thats was i said with this:

Quote:

who is the biggest part of the manned guarding industry? its all the big names we all know and loathe who do nothing for quality/service.

as for this one:

Quote:

Quote:
they went out to the industry and got the input from the industry

Did they really !!!!!!!!!

they would have had to. the SIA are not in a position knowledge wise to build the NOS for a job probably none of them have done.

everything was done alongside SITO, who drew the people in from the companies and had them decide on a generic all agreed appropriate NOS for the new BJT.

id love to know who the expert panel was on that one too.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:51 am

Well, we were not asked to be on the panel, despite putting across the obvious fact that, in general, security officers wanted and needed more training - or atleast a more appropriate core skills set.
We did have regular dialogue with Perpetuity Research who were contracted by the SIA to investigate the needs of the industry and at least we managed to put forward a successful argument for the inclusion of Conflict Management training.

One thing we did keep getting told was that security personnel would be asked their views in an anonymous survey 'later' etc etc - sadly, that survey never got advertised so very few participated. We conducted our own survey and passed on that information but clearly it was ignored - despite it being the only data they had (that I'm aware of) from security officers.

We even had a meeting with SITO at the beginning of this year and so far, they have given us no feedback on our comments and suggestions.
This comes as no suprise but considering THEY asked for the meeting, one would have expected some feedback out of courtesy if nothing else.