SIA Training

Newbie Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 7

can anyone clarify the training criteria for the SIA Licencing?
I work for a large organisation who are attempting to put me on a "one day condensed" course for me to qualify for my licence.
After checking the SIA Website there is no mention of a condensed course except the 7hour conflict one, which applies only if you hold an exemption qaulification Confused

The word "Cowboy" springs to mind!! Twisted Evil

Rising Star Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 56

Hi Toffo,

You cannot complete the training for Security BJT in a one day condensed course FACT!

The SIA regulations state that part one must be taken in no less tan 22 hours and part 2 in 7 hours - now I'm no mathematician but I don't think 27 hours will fit into one day Very Happy

I am a qualified trainer for parts 1 & 2 for Retail and Static & Patrol (running my own training company) and would be more than happy to give more detail to you employers if they wish for details.

I'm not going to plug my company as that's not the done thing in forums, however; email me at my registered address and I will send as much information as I can.

Cheers,
Eddie.

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:02 pm

Hi Toffo, I will concur with 'Secssolcouk' - whilst there is no legislation that prevents someone from undertaking a 'condensed' course their IS, thankfully legislation that prevents anyone from using that for complying with Part 1 of the SIA licence.

I am not certain what measures are in place to prevent unscrupulous emplyers from taking the 'condensed course' route in order to get more candidates through in a shorter time span so if anyone can shed any light on that I would be very interested.

Rising Star Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 56

My understanding is that IF an employer were to successfully find a trainer that is willing to "condense" the training time to less than the 22 hours as stipulated by the SIA, the the trainer should be stripped of his license to train.
This is a fundamental part of the training in order to safeguard not only the security officer, but also the general public and the company's clients. If the company is willing to take such drastic and illegal shortcuts then they really aren't worth bothering with and can never hold their head up and shout "we comply".
The trainer is under quite a lot of responsibility when it comes to training the BJT parts 1 & 2 as the good old term of "Vicarious Liability" comes into play when things go wrong after the guard has gained license - first thing that is asked is who trained you? get my drift.....
The trainer will end up in a whole lotta trouble for taking shortcuts, and not only risks losing his license, but also his short term liberty.

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:44 pm

I echo your sentiments but can employers not use their own 'trainers' (assuming they are qualified to teach courses for Part 1 and 2 as trainers for the purposes of this discussion) as they have done in the past? - leaving yet another gapping hole.

I have criticised the likes of SITO in the past for leaving gapping holes which can be circumvented by those with no scruples and in fact there was a discussion regarding some of them here with Stephan Hey. I know the examination part has changed slightly for BJT with the candidate having to sign the test paper with the number of changes made etc - though I'm not sure what that acheives.

I'm not saying that there are hundreds of security companies out there that would take advantage using their own trained 'trainers' or 'train the trainers' but I do have concerns that whilst in-house training is allowed to continue with the same person acting as invigulator / examiner the temptation for the large companies may be too much to resist - as it has in the past.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:30 am

Yes John,

Security Companies can indeed employ their own "in house trainers" but the SIA regulations of minimum tuition remains in force (22 hours part 1 and 7 hours part 2).

No comapny or trainer has the authority to change this timescale; however, a trainer can adjust the time to extend the learning delivered and to adopt a flexible approach (weekends/evenings etc).

Rising Star Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 56

Sorry, "guest post" was indeed me, I didn't realise i was logged out Embarassed

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:27 pm

No problem!

Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:43 pm

Yes I understand and appreciate the fact that in order to qualify for a licence (in terms of training undertaken) the candidate has to undertake 'X' (approved) course and that the course has a minimum time span over which the core skills have to be taught.
The point I was trying to make (inadequately) was that I see no method of checking (VERIFICATION) over how long any specific course was taught over if the training was carried out by the security companies own trainers and examiners.

In my eyes, this leaves the system open to abuse and exploitation, as it has in the past.

It would be a shame if the system WAS abused and regardless of the legal implications of doing so, there will be some who, sadly will try.

Personally, I am all for licencing, despite the cost to both employer and employee, though I would have liked to see a higher standard of core skills, the Guild will certainly be doing its part in investigating comlaints from emloyees and passing them on the the proper authorities were needed.

Rising Star Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 56

Yes,

Sorry John, I did miss the point somewhat Embarassed

Have to agree that unscrupulous companies will probably (I'd even put money on the fact) run their "own version" of the BJT which will undoubtedly be inadequate and dangerous for both S/O and Joe Public in the long run.

There must be an absolute way that the SIA can implement a failsafe to this training period - perhaps an audit into the start date vs assignment allocation would be a deterent to some compaies in as much that they may employ a S/O on full pay but must not actively employ them on an assignment for 5 days (and be able to prove the fact)

For most "Jack the Lad" firms, this would be deterent in itself, as many wouldn't want to pay 60 hours to a brand new staff member when they wouldn't get anything in return.

MORE COST TO THE COMPANY! I hear you shout; yes, indeed, and if this is the only method to restrict the loopholes then I'm all for it.

Floor open for suggestions................. Very Happy

Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 5:39 pm

Not your fault - I should have been more explicit in my post.
I am pleased you agree with my point that it is a loop hole that needs closing or have at least some form of EXTERNAL audit/verification in order to prevent the whole concept of having legally regulated core skills from falling apart and sending us back inot the dark ages once more.

Having said that, the phrase 'legally regulated core skills' is not quite accurate and I need to do some more checking before I post more on that subject as I think I have found yet another gapping hole.

Your idea of monitoring employee start date compared with assignment allocation is quite a good one but for the benefit of others reading this it has been known for some companies (including the bigger ones) to state to prospective employees that passing the exam is a PRE-REQUISITE of being offered empolyment - in other words, they have to go on the course, dont get paid for their time (as they are not officially employees at that time) and will only be offered a job subject to successfull completion of the course. I should add that the companies that do this, do pay for the candidates expenses and meals, including sometimes lodgings. So this is something that needs to stop.
I too appreciate that the smaller companies would find it difficult to pay for a candidates time, meals and lodgings (if appropriate) and something I have often wondered about is insurance. If the candidate is not an employee, are they covered under the security companies liability insurance - if anyone knows the answer to that I can stop thinking about it Smile

Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:27 pm

Quote:

Floor open for suggestions.................

I missed that bit. Hmm, I will think about that one Wink

Newbie Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 7

thanks for all your feedback, the training now appears to be over 4 days! once again thanks!!

Rising Star Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 56

No problem Toffo.

btw is your training being done in house or by an outside training company?

Newbie Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 7

as far as i am aware it is in house? only have dates!