Bringing Half of Your Toolbox on Duty

 

 

In my community police officers work a variety of what are called extra duty jobs. These are hired through the police department but paid for by the client. Most of these fall into two categories, traffic control jobs and security jobs. This is the same in most towns in my area.

The traffic control jobs are usually at construction sites where roads are dug up or lanes are closed and the police officer is there to ensure vehicle and pedestrian safety. The security jobs are generally large events, like street fairs, concerts or sporting events and or private businesses like bars and a few retail stores. What all these jobs have in common is that the police officers are all required to be there in uniform and fully equipped. Even when the job is considered low risk, the officer still carries his firearm. Even when he is directing traffic he still carries hand cuffs. The regular police rules and regulations apply to these jobs just like they do to regular duty.

This got me to thinking about why the security industry allows such variance in how our officers are trained and what equipment we carry. Why we have a difference between armed sites and unarmed sites. Why we let the client dictate officer safety or the lack thereof. It is a bit like calling a plumber to fix you sink and telling him only to bring screwdrivers, as you don't think he will need a wrench inside your house. The more I think of it, we may be the only industry that does this. When POI came out with the Below 50 pledge, I remember the discussions about ballistic vests and how some clients don't want officers wearing them. Would they be allowed to tell a construction worker not to wear a hard hat on their site? Of course not, because in construction hard hats are recognized as safety equipment.

This does not even get into the lack of back up. However when someone hires a police officer for a site, the police department has formulas to tell them how many officers are needed and if on site supervision will be needed. So if the lanes being closed around that dig warrant two or three officers that is what they get. There is no bargaining involved. Imagine if we did that in private security. The only real difference is that in the public sector there is no competition waiting to undercut each other by shaving more and more off of our safety.

Despite the recent ruling about a security company being responsible for injuries to a resident of an apartment complex that they supposedly protected, little will change. Clients will still demand less and companies will cheerfully supply less. What will it take for us to wake up and see what needs to be done for our profession?

Alan F. Shaw

Partner - Sound Training Group LLP