|
TYPES OF CONTRACT SECURITY AGENCIES
In most areas of the U.S., there are many smaller locally owned and operated security service providers. It is not unusual for these firms to be capable of providing equal or superior services as compared with the international, national or multi-state agencies.
These larger firms have the increased overhead of regional or district management, as well as executive management costs.
In an attempt to emulate corporate giants, which haven't yet learned of their error, some of these larger security services have followed suit by virtually decimating their communications capabilities--that is eliminating humans and replacing them with voice mail. Properly managed voice mail systems are not necessarily a negative feature. However, prospects who run into any problems or delays when initially attempting to reach a representative should probably just hang up and cross the company off the list of prospective bidders. Inadequate communications at this point indicates the same situation will likely exist in the event of a crisis or critical event. Other large providers, however, have not fallen into this trendy trap.
Frequently the caliber of service varies greatly from office to office and region to region with these large agencies. Often local branch management has little authority to offer custom services or otherwise vary from the routine generic service without regional or executive approval. This oversight only becomes a problem if the bureaucracy of the agency is such that decision making is a slow cumbersome process.
While some national businesses have contracted with these larger agencies to handle all their business on a nationwide basis, this usually proves to be a mistake. The intent is usually reduced costs, but because of the variations in quality from branch to branch, often exceptionally poor security results in some locations. Typically, too, security personnel wages, contract rates and other specifications are identical for all locations throughout the country in the terms of these contracts. Too often, these larger firms develop these national contracts in the same manner they would for purchasing widgets. They seem to overlook the fact that security is a people business and wages which might provide a good living for officers and insure low turnover in at a rural location in Arkansas, will guarantee the lowest caliber of personnel and an unhealthy level of turnover in Manhattan. In cases where national contracts exist, the corporation's local management should always be given the authority to replace the service if it proves to be substandard, and have some say in regard to rates and duties performed.
By all means, these larger firms should be considered, but not to the exclusion of the smaller local companies which are often able to customize service, handle unusual functions and duties, and provide nonstandard specialized training applicable exclusively at the client facility.
It should be noted here that when a large corporation deals with a small contract service, there is the remote possibility that the client company could be considered a co-employer by the N.L.R.B. when the client company's specifications are significantly different than the typical operations handled by the agency.
|
|
