SITO Training

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:40 am

SITO may struggle in 2005 but what you will have to consider is that within the industry and to the vast amount of end users SITO is a recognised by them; in the blurb sent out by most security providers as a result all others may well be viewed as second rate. Embarassed

I’m NOT saying that this is the case but merely voicing a thought. Idea

Newbie Joined: Jul 20, 2004 Posts: 4 Location: Unknown

Dear John et al,

May I first of all congratulate you on this website and the very frank forums which are very informative. I can understand that not everybody is happy with SITO, I am not always happy with SITO and indeed when I took over the running of this organisation I had to think back to my roots as a Security Officer some 12 years ago. Great strides are being made and we do want to get it right first time for THE PEOPLE as we recognise that you are the most important factor in all of this and more than 250,000 people now hold a SITO training or qualification certificate, but perhaps some history would be helpful? SITO personnel have been collectively engaged in trying to haul the industry forward in respect of training and education standards over the past fourteen years, it has been a long haul. We have tried to encourage both industry and its end-users to look up to standards and not down to price. We have raised standards in general for all sectors within the scope of SITO as well as the in-house sector, but results are still patchy. Many successes are at lower levels but it is proving to be a real struggle when you progress beyond the basic minimum. But is this surprising? Across all sectors of the UK economy, the average company is currently spending £117 per person per year on staff training. We have reliable reports of companies in the guarding sector, even some larger companies, spending £50 or less per person on training. 43% of the national average in a sector which is people dominated and with a very high labour turnover.

We are committed to investing into future training and qualifications activty and many of the views your members express are very valid and constructive. As Bob Doyle's Line Manager, I can confirm that we will approach the Guild to nominate Security Officers as steering group members, but in the interim --- KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK!!!

STEFAN HAY
DIRECTOR
SITO Very Happy

Newbie Joined: Jul 20, 2004 Posts: 4 Location: Unknown

Dear John et al,

May I first of all congratulate you on this website and the very frank forums which are very informative. I can understand that not everybody is happy with SITO, I am not always happy with SITO and indeed when I took over the running of this organisation I had to think back to my roots as a Security Officer some 12 years ago. Great strides are being made and we do want to get it right first time for THE PEOPLE as we recognise that you are the most important factor in all of this and more than 250,000 people now hold a SITO training or qualification certificate, but perhaps some history would be helpful? SITO personnel have been collectively engaged in trying to haul the industry forward in respect of training and education standards over the past fourteen years, it has been a long haul. We have tried to encourage both industry and its end-users to look up to standards and not down to price. We have raised standards in general for all sectors within the scope of SITO as well as the in-house sector, but results are still patchy. Many successes are at lower levels but it is proving to be a real struggle when you progress beyond the basic minimum. But is this surprising? Across all sectors of the UK economy, the average company is currently spending £117 per person per year on staff training. We have reliable reports of companies in the guarding sector, even some larger companies, spending £50 or less per person on training. 43% of the national average in a sector which is people dominated and with a very high labour turnover.

We are committed to investing into future training and qualifications activty and many of the views your members express are very valid and constructive. As Bob Doyle's Line Manager, I can confirm that we will approach the Guild to nominate Security Officers as steering group members, but in the interim --- KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK!!!

STEFAN HAY
DIRECTOR
SITO Very Happy

Forum Addict Joined: Apr 28, 2004 Posts: 122

£117. PATHETIC.

50odd - im not going to comment.

The reason for high turnover, is

1)attitudes to security are rooted in the class system and to most people security staff are a hinderance, except when they need you, then its your fault they need you.

2) pay is backward

3) you never feel valued

4) almost 0 job satisfaction.

5) no prospects. i dont care for the chance of being promoted in a few years to supervisor to earn an extra 50p an hour and receive 1000% more hassle than i do now (or did in my case).

is it really 117 average?

lets see... training room full of 10 security officers

maybe a hundred pounds a day wages to training bod

4 days bjt = 400 pay to training man + maybe 4 days 4 pay to s/o's @ maybe 60 a day so 2400 salary to s/o's + 400 pounds to training guy

this is 280 a day. so from this i conclude your not including the salarys of the security officers being trained so 400/10= 40

after bjt you might get the odd days training here and there

lets assume thats 3 days

so £70 + a few training aids. maybe £90.

sounds far more realistic doesnt it. unless said companies are bringing outside trainers in. then its closer to your figure.

i reiterate,
PATHETIC.

Sincerely; thanks for the input though Stefan, always appreciate input from the top.

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:40 pm

Stefan,

May I reiterate the words of my fellow poster Spooky, “Thanks for your input. It is welcome!”
Only time will tell if you are to be believed by the most critical of people – our members!

Enjoy your membership as I feel that only good can come from people like you; making yourself available for what at times will be hard for you to take criticism from your end users - the OFFICERS and not companies representatives.

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:23 pm

Mr Hay,

Welcome to the voice of the Security Industry.
It really is great news to know that SITO (or someone from sito) is at least looking at the website.

The comments you have made in your postings are laudable.
The simple fact of the matter is that the greater part of the people that really matter in this industry - the men on the ground - will view your comments with degrees of disbelief varying from a snort of disgust right through to a full blown string of expletives.

"Too little too late"

The figures you have quoted mean absolutely nothing.

Figures can be manipulated or written in such a fashion as to produce a desired effect.
A ploy well known to all politicians.

Quite simply, they mean nothing. Nothing at all.

A poor but obvious analogy:

"The average human has less than one leg, arm, eye......etc"

Whilst your presence here is most welcome, I fear it will have little or no effect on the opinions and views expressed within these forums.

Too many empty promises have been made for too long.

I have no doubt that every posting you make will be scrutinized by every member........right down to the last full stop.

Your remark that the "labour turnover" in the industry is very high is merely a statement of the blindingly obvious.
No prizes for guessing why.

Security operatives are leaving the industry in their droves.
I need not state the obvious solution to stem this drain.

Quote:

We are committed to investing into future training and qualifications activty and many of the views your members express are very valid and constructive. As Bob Doyle's Line Manager, I can confirm that we will approach the Guild to nominate Security Officers as steering group members, but in the interim --- KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK!!!

You can rest assured that these forums will continue to "KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK!!!"

How patronizing. I wish I could return the compliment.

Rest assured we will never cease work to bring about USEFUL changes in the Industry.

You have made a statement through your posting. Now prove its sincerity to the Industry.

Actions speak louder than words Mr Hay.

To your credit, you have to some degree, now made yourself available to the forum posters.

Stand back and wait for the blast.........it WILL come.

Please remember, and whilst this final comment is aimed at SITO (the organization) and not a personal remark to you as an individual.

"Respect is earned, never demanded".

SITO......You have a lot to do if you wish to earn the respect of the security Industry operatives.

Regards,

Mike.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:56 am

Hi Stefan and welcome to our website.
I noticed your registration some time ago and am glad you have taken the time to air your views.

As you have probably noticed, as soon as 'licencing' or 'training' gets mentioned, I in particular, tend to grow horns - primarily out of frustration having seen the antics of many companies at first hand over the last 20 years.

I would whole-heartedly support the idea of experienced security officers, whether they be members of the Guild or not, participating in any Steering Group that pertains to training within the industry.

I appreciate that the root of some evils must lie fairly and squarely with the security companies who either will not, or cannot, stump up the extra cash needed for training. Indeed, there are still many 'top' companies who undertake there own in-house BJT training not just to reduce costs but to ensure they can 'assist' candidates in answering examination questions correctly - and therefore negating any benefit which the industry may have enjoyed, as well as casting a perception of dubiousness over the quality of any industry recognised training.

Assisting candidates to answer examination questions may help that companies manpower problem but has an overall negative impact on not just the industry but each and every security officer employed within it.

I have to confess, I have not analysed training costs so am in no position to comment on that specifically but I think there is a real need for statistics based purely for the manned guarding sector, not the industry overall.

I do not honestly believe that the money is not there training, if I may make an example Securiplan who laste year refused to consider any additional training (other than SITO BJT) for one of their Inspectors, who asked for a Supervisory course and First Aid saying it was not financially viable, then they go and spend in excess of a £million on a new livery/uniform which their employees hated and by all accounts, so did many of their clients.

We have a golden opportunity to set correct core competency standards if the SIA will back and enforce those standards, not just for security officers, but for their Inspectors, the majority of whom have had no Supervisory or Man-Management training whatsoever and of course company Managers, many of whom have been promoted from within with little or no additional training.

Sorry to have to cut this post short, after a 12 hour night shoft, my bed is calling me but I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Newbie Joined: Jul 20, 2004 Posts: 4 Location: Unknown

Dear John et al,

I would like to thank you all for your feedback. I must admit that I find it difficult to disagree with any of your many comments regarding the state of training and professional development opportunities in the security industry. I would like to say to MIKE that I never intended to be Patronising. I do believe that the website is great. I welcome the fact that you bother to participate, but most importantly I am glad that somebody out there actually cares.

OK so statistics don't impress and as a famous man once said (if only I could remember who!) "There are three types of lies in life: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!"

The truth of the matter is that Security Officers, (and I reiterate I've been there: £4.25 per hour, 72 hour week to make it worth my while, night shift after night shift, drunks urinating on my shoes, stabbed with a stanley knife to name but a few of the delights!), are viewed as a product by some suppliers and endusers, which is not neccesarily a bad thing if they are prepared to invest in the product. Personally I take a different stance. We are an industry run by people, supplying people, to protect people and the new team at SITO will tell you that I do lead by example and look after my people. When I took over the running of SITO it had lost its way. Yes we were a catagory A NTO (Wow!) Yes we had a perceived monopoly, but we did not have a particularly good relationship with industry. We have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to improve SITO so that industry takes us more seriously. We had to start with your employers because we have to have influence at that level, but that does not mean that we do not care about people (security officers especially as it is you that have to do the training, sit the exams and be assessed. Without you there is no industry and no need for SITO. (Yes MIKE I am being sincere!) It is getting better and a number of companies were investing heavily in training and development, but it is not good enough and I will not rest until we take this industry out of the Dark Ages!

Regards to all

STEFAN

Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:03 pm

Dear Stefan,

Quote:

I will not rest until we take this industry out of the Dark Ages!

echoes the general feeling amongst the majority of the regular site visitors and forum posters and is exactly why the Guild exists.

We all have our own way of voicing our opinions.
Many are more subtle than mine.

I call a spade a spade. Always have, always will.

Regarding you as an individual, no personal offence was ever intended and do not doubt the sincerity of your statements, but SITO the organization, still has a long way to go to achieve its aims.

I have yet to see any proof that the industry IS getting better.
My own opinion is that the industry has actually suffered at the hands of the SIA due to lack of planning and consultation before commencement of the new legislation.

I understand and appreciate that you felt the need to approach employers first, but that effectively placed the opinions of the men on the ground second.

To be realistic, most employers will get as much as they can for as little as they can. That is purely and simply profit margin based business practise.
The advice/recommendations made by employers would bound to have been swayed by their own interests.

I have absolutely no doubt the sincerity in your statement:

Quote:

Personally I take a different stance. We are an industry run by people, supplying people, to protect people and the new team at SITO will tell you that I do lead by example and look after my people.

Nothing pleases me better than to have someone in your position "Batting for our side".

I stand by my own words that SITO (the company) has much to do to earn the respect of the security Industry operatives.

Believe me when I say that you are welcome here.
The industry desperately needs all the support it can get.

Our opinions may occasionally differ, but we can at least agree to disagree.

On this particular occasion, my own view is that SITO may have gained a more realistic insight by beginning with the recommendations made by the men on the ground first.......then the employers.

Naturally, I respect your right to disagree.

Regards,

Mike.

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:40 pm

<Bump>
Just thought I bump the thread up a bit.
I appreciate the comments being made by members and hope we can take this opportunity to advance the training standards or at least minimise the risk of company trainers trying to cheat the system.

I think we are all in agreement that training standards would have advanced more readily if the security companies were more willing to put their purse strings where their mouth-pieces were. I think we are all also aware that the industry profit margin in the manned guarding sector is peanuts - I believe figures of 3 or 4% net were quoted by the BSIA a while ago. Still, looking at the turnover of the larger companies, 3 or 4% of £50 million+ is a not insignificant amount of money and if companies were a little more open about what they spend their money on to their respective workforces, perhaps they would have a better understanding of the economics behind their training budgets.

I look forward to recieving an official invitation for the Guild to join your steering committee - it must be around 7 months since Bob first brought the possibility up.

On a lighter note, no doubt there are a few out there who are waiting for my trivia brain cell to kick in (I think they have become some what accustomed to it by now) so;

Quote:

There are three types of lies in life: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!

is a quotation from Benjamin Disraeli

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:18 pm

Well done on the trivia John.

Speaking of Disraeli and quotes, here is one of his that may have served SITO well when advising the SIA:

"What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expected generally happens."

Regards to all,

Mike.

Newbie Joined: Oct 17, 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Reading

I would have to agree with Zbduk on the matter of communication, if we can not understand each other ( a problem I frequently come across with stand ins and people I get sent to train up ) then at any kind of distance (radio) we are defenceless and in severe peril. I work on rather a massive site and what I always tell the newbs is that the radio is our lifeline, to which I all to often get the response of a nodded head and an enthusiastic smile together with a complete incapacity to explain why, whether they had this explained to them before and, on occasion, without even being able to repeat what I just said. If I'm at one end of the site getting stabbed in the face I would like to be able to expect the person on the other end of the line to understand what I am bubbling into the mic. Mad

Ok, yoga ana cuppa later I'm calm again...

I think that at least a basic grasp of the national tongue is essential, if, as I have seen before, people come to an interview with a translator to explain the app. form that they so obviously hadn't filled out themselves they are, in my humble opinion, not of the stuff I would want to be covering my back. Irrelevant of how many dans in various aerobics they hold. Wink

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:14 pm

Whilst I do not want to alienate any foreign speaking nationals who might be members, I would have to agree that the ability to speak, listen, read and write in english is an essential quality for the safety of others.

Hand signals are quite a useful tool but from any sort of distance, its all just another load of semaphore. I thought part of the SIA criteria was to look at 'ability to communicate in all forms' but I have to confess, have heard nothing recently about this - perhaps someone might like to clarify if they know anything.

The problem, is not so much with us being in a multi racial society but the diverse range of broad accents we have in this country - lord knows how they cope in the US.

As an example, for my sins (boy I must love my wife a lot Laughing

) I live in Wigan and have done for 4 years now. I still cannot understand the local lingo and would hate to rely on it to save my life.

The phrase 'babysyed watch', pronounced 'Bab is yed waartch' as all one word - how the heck does that translate to 'steak and kidney pudding with peas'. In any other sentence, 'peas' is pronounced 'pays' so I'm on a non starter to begin wth.

Lets have a look at the Nottingham accent, which I'm very familiar with.
The phrase pronounced as one word 'ayu-gora-wiya' means 'Is the wife accompanying you'.

As for the Glaswegian, Liverpudlian and Mancs accent - I won't even go there - no offence Bigyin as I can understand you perfectly.

Yes the ability to communicate is essential to our job and failing to ensure that communication process goes unhindered has a direct bearing on the safety of employees.

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:28 pm

John
no offense taken I can understand most accents and what the person is saying , but the accent I cannot understand is the yorkshire accent no
offence intended but I just cant understand it at all.

I lived in Skelmersdale Lancashire for 8 years yes just down the road from you john and i could understand everything my ex said and what everyone else in the district said not a problem, but sometimes they could not understand me, if I was being attacked I would like any of my colleauges to understand what I was saying while defending myself as I am sure any security officer would .

any comments
bigyin

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:10 pm

There is a semi-sensible answer to all this. Use codes. I know this will not apply to all issues or solve everything but it does go along way.

For an example take a club I worked at. It was split into 6 zones. We had different codes for different incidents - fights, medical, extraction etc.

So for instance, a fight by the upper bar would be "code 4 zone 6" This would be put out twice and then simpy 46, 46 etc... The reason for this was two fold. A very noisy environment and 3 staff who were fantastic but had limited english.

Also, how many employers are prepared to offer english lessons to people of a second language? I certainly do and am myself going to be starting sign language classes when I return to work after my enforced absence.