California is once again preparing to rock the boat, this time by imposing new training and wage requirements on the private-security industry. California overregulates nearly everything it touches, and that remains one of the defining features of the Boškovic Republic.
The timing could hardly be worse.California is approaching the 2028 Olympic Games, an international event that will create security demands far beyond the ordinary needs of office buildings, stores, hotels, parking facilities, warehouses, and residential communities. Los Angeles will need thousands of additional security guards. Instead, the Legislature appears determined to make employing them substantially more expensive.
Security guards have traditionally been minimally trained and minimally paid. That is not necessarily admirable, but it is reality. More important, security work is not a one-size-fits-all occupation. Every property has different risks, responsibilities, and expectations. In most cases, property owners and security companies are in the best position to train guards for the particular locations they protect.
Aggressive, poorly trained security guards are a liability nightmare. A guard who thinks he is Wyatt Earp can create far more trouble than he prevents.
Security guards are not police officers. They generally do not enforce criminal laws. Their basic function is to observe, report, discourage misconduct, summon police, and protect the property or people they have been hired to watch. Some carry less-lethal weapons or firearms, primarily for their own protection. They are not expected to risk their lives when violence erupts.
In practical terms, many security guards perform roughly the same function as a surveillance camera monitored by someone sitting in another country. Putting a guard in a uniform, hanging equipment from his belt, and placing him near an entrance may make him look formidable, but frequently he is little more than a human scarecrow.
If security guards have another useful function, it is often that of a concierge. They direct visitors, answer questions, control access, and explain where people can obtain the goods and services their clients are selling. They should look professional, speak understandable English, exercise good judgment, and serve as friendly ambassadors for the property.
When conflict occurs, guards ordinarily should not rush into the middle of it. If they can professionally calm a situation without endangering themselves or others, wonderful. At a minimum, every guard should receive competent first-aid training and know how to summon emergency assistance quickly.
The security industry reportedly suffers from an extraordinary turnover rate, commonly estimated at or near 90 percent. That should surprise absolutely no one. Low wages, miserable working conditions, erratic schedules, limited benefits, and disrespect from certain members of the public do not exactly inspire lifelong devotion to the profession.
Advancement within the security industry is also easier discussed than accomplished. Police agencies pay substantially more, but they impose far more demanding qualifications, background investigations, psychological testing, physical standards, academy requirements, and field training. Merely having worked as a security guard will not cause a police department to roll out the red carpet.
Police agencies are already struggling to recruit qualified officers. Imagine the difficulty of attracting dependable private-security guards for considerably less money, especially when many applicants accept those jobs only because they are desperate for work.
The California Legislature apparently wants to professionalize an industry that is often anything but professional. That sounds noble. It will also be expensive.
Those additional expenses will be passed directly to property owners, businesses, tenants, customers, and taxpayers. Some employers will reduce staffing. Others will eliminate guards entirely. Smaller businesses may decide that cameras, locked doors, and remote monitoring are cheaper than maintaining a human security presence.
The Legislature may congratulate itself for improving training and compensation. Meanwhile, California will have fewer guards available precisely when the 2028 Olympics will require more of them than ever.
The result will not necessarily be a more professional security industry. It may simply be a much smaller one, with fewer uniforms, fewer eyes on the street, and fewer scarecrows standing around to discourage crime.
To the California Legislature, one ancient warning remains appropriate: No good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, California businesses and the public will be the ones receiving the punishment.
Comments