Give Security Guards Credit

Everyone is clamoring for greater security, yet providing security is a thankless job. Most people, even post-Sept. 11, perceive it as a nuisance if not an outright obstacle to their convenience of getting into a building or on an airplane quickly.

I’ve spent more than 20 years involved in providing security to private facilities. The average pay rate for a security officer in Los Angeles in 1999, according to the California Bureau of Labor Statistics, was $8.75 per hour. The U.S. Labor Department puts that rate at less than $8.

Several downtown buildings paid far less. Most of the security officers who I know today would rather work at McDonald’s for more money than face the hassles of a job in the security field.

Because most security officers have no chance for upward career mobility, are given little training and no respect, the industry struggles to retain its work force. Security likely has the worst retention rate of any service-based industry. Turnover is high--anywhere from 100% to 800%--and it’s easy to understand why.

Why is the pay so low for security officers?

In the 1980s, there were only five major security companies in Los Angeles; now there are more than 30. It is a very competitive marketplace. Each is determined to provide the lowest-price service possible. As there are no restraints, such as a security guard union to monitor pay rates and benefits, some security firms will bid on accounts with no planned pay increases for the staff.

Companies that purchase the service are not blameless. Building owners and managers often negotiate service contracts without providing adequate wages for security personnel. Security contracts are negotiated without regard for the labor force, unlike janitors and building engineers, for example, who have strong labor unions to set standards for their benefits and their wages.

The industry itself is to blame as well. During the Carter administration, several bills requiring stricter guidelines for national security firms circulated in committees. Those guidelines included tighter control on background checks and increased training. The measures went nowhere, thanks to industry pressure.

Security is usually a 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week job. No other building vendor spends as much time on duty as the security officers. Yet most officers aren’t given paid vacation time or the barest minimum of benefits.

Security is considered an inconvenience. The public hates waiting in line, having bags checked, being told to produce a property removal pass when removing equipment from the premise, and will become irate if late or in a hurry.

Security officers need not be rocket scientists, but they do need to know how to adequately perform their job. Training is paramount. Security officers are not “rent-a-cops” and should not be viewed as police, just as deterrents. If anything, they are an extension of building safety.

What can be done? The industry must take a hard look at itself and strive to do better. The security industry must bid for jobs, which include a reasonable wage including cost-of-living increases that building owners and managers must be willing to pay. Contracts must represent room for profit, training, promotions and rewards for outstanding performance.

The security industry needs to incorporate training by local government agencies into a formal training program. Local government agencies, including the police and fire departments, need to provide vital training and cooperation in such areas as bomb and terrorist awareness.

The amount of responsibility borne by security officers far exceeds what is visible to the public, and they deserve respect.