Thunder Bay Jail 'a ship that's already under water,' inquest for Ontario MPP's nephew told
Jeffrey Bell told an Ontario inquest that he and fellow correctional officers at the Thunder Bay Jail “are constantly fighting the age of our building and the hiring practices of our employer.” Bell testified this week before a coroner's jury examining the death of Kevin Mamakwa, a member of Kingfishe...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/kevin-mamakwa-inquest-day-six-and-seven-9.7228753?cmp=rss

Security for Show: Insurance Mandates, Misconceptions, and the Devaluation of the Guard

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 29, 2026

Why Security Exists in the First Place

In many commercial environments, security officers are not hired because management wants them. They are hired because insurers require them.

Businesses operating in higher-risk areas—whether due to crime rates, asset value, or operational exposure—often face increased insurance premiums. One of the most common mitigation strategies is the presence of on-site security personnel (Insurance Information Institute, 2023).

In some cases, this requirement is explicit. In others, it is financial: the cost of hiring security is lower than the increase in insurance premiums without it.

Security, in this context, is not viewed as an operational asset. It is a cost-control measure.

The Cost Versus Value Problem

This dynamic creates an immediate contradiction.

From an insurance standpoint:

• Security presence reduces liability
• Security provides documentation and incident reporting
• Security acts as a deterrent

From a management standpoint:

• Security appears inactive during uneventful periods
• Security does not directly generate revenue
• Security is seen as an expense

This leads to a perception gap.

When nothing happens, management often concludes that security is unnecessary. In reality, the absence of incidents is frequently the result of deterrence and monitoring—functions that are not immediately visible (Button, 2007).

The “They’re Not Doing Anything” Misconception

One of the most persistent misunderstandings about security work is the idea that inactivity equals uselessness.

Security officers are trained to:

• Observe
• Report
• Document

They are not, in most cases:

• Law enforcement officers
• Investigators
• Agents of force

The primary function is preventive presence and accurate reporting.

This creates a paradox:

• If nothing happens, the officer appears idle
• If something happens, the officer is expected to respond

The expectation that security should actively prevent crime misunderstands both the legal limitations and the practical role of private security (ASIS International, 2021).

Legal Boundaries and Risk Exposure

Security officers operate under strict legal constraints.

If an officer:

• Uses force improperly
• Detains someone without proper authority
• Acts beyond the scope of their role

The liability does not fall on law enforcement. It falls on the employer—and potentially the client.

The widely cited standard—“observe and report”—exists precisely to limit this liability (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).

When management pressures officers to “do more” without understanding these limits, they are not increasing security. They are increasing legal risk.

Workplace Attitudes and Social Perception

The insurance-driven nature of security employment contributes to a broader cultural issue.

Because security is:

• Required rather than desired
• Viewed as a cost rather than an investment

Officers are often treated as:

• Unnecessary
• Replaceable
• Low-skill labor

This can manifest as dismissive or degrading attitudes from management and staff.

At its core, this reflects a misunderstanding of the role and a devaluation of the function security provides.

Deterrence Is Invisible by Design

Effective security is often invisible.

A visible presence can:

• Discourage opportunistic crime
• Signal monitoring and accountability
• Reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring

When this deterrence works, there is nothing to see.

This creates a fundamental disconnect:

• The better the system functions, the less visible its impact

And in many organizations, invisibility is interpreted as inactivity.

The Structural Contradiction

The system creates a loop:

• Insurance requires security
• Companies hire security to meet that requirement
• Managers resent the cost
• Security is undervalued
• Expectations become unrealistic

This contradiction is not the result of individual behavior. It is built into the structure of how security is deployed.

Conclusion

Security officers exist in many workplaces not because they are fully understood, but because they are required. This creates a disconnect between purpose and perception.

When security is treated as a cost rather than a function, and when its role is misunderstood, both the effectiveness of the system and the treatment of the people within it suffer.

Understanding what security is—and what it is not—is essential to resolving that disconnect.

If you read this and it matters, help me keep it going: https://www.patreon.com/cw/WPSNews

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

References

ASIS International. (2021). Private security principles and practices. ASIS International.

Button, M. (2007). Security officers and policing: Powers, culture and control in the governance of private space. Ashgate Publishing.

Insurance Information Institute. (2023). Commercial property risk and insurance practices. https://www.iii.org

U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa

#employmentPractices #insuranceRequirements #laborLaw #privateSecurity #riskManagement #securityIndustry #workplaceDynamics

The Security Industry’s Open Secret: Legal, Engineered Instability

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 15, 2026

The Contract Decides Your Worth

There is a structural reality in the United States security industry that shapes nearly every working condition: wages are tied to client contracts, not to standardized employer pay scales. In practical terms, this means the same worker, employed by the same company, can earn significantly different wages depending entirely on the site assignment.

One contract may support wages near $19 per hour, while another may fall just above minimum wage. This variation is not illegal. U.S. labor law permits employers to set wages so long as they meet minimum wage and overtime requirements (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).

As a result, workers are not compensated based on role consistency, but on the economic value of the contract to which they are assigned. This creates a fragmented wage structure where stability is secondary to contract pricing.

The 36-Hour Scheduling Model

A common scheduling structure in the industry involves three 12-hour shifts per week, totaling 36 hours. This model is widespread because it remains below the 40-hour threshold required to trigger overtime under federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], 29 U.S.C. § 207).

This scheduling approach is not incidental. It allows companies to maintain long coverage shifts while avoiding overtime obligations. Federal law does not mandate daily overtime outside specific jurisdictions such as California; instead, overtime is calculated on a weekly basis (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).

The result is a system where workers experience extended shifts without the financial compensation typically associated with long working hours.

The Multi-Site Overtime Problem

A more serious issue arises when workers take additional shifts across multiple sites within the same company.

For example:

• 36 hours at Site A
• 12 hours at Site B
• Total: 48 hours in a single workweek

Under federal law, all hours worked for the same employer must be aggregated when calculating overtime (29 C.F.R. § 778.103). In this case, 8 hours should be compensated at time-and-a-half.

However, some employers process payroll by contract or site rather than by total weekly hours. When this results in overtime not being paid, it constitutes a violation of federal wage law, not a permissible accounting practice (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).

This distinction is critical: contract separation does not override the legal definition of a single employer.

Software-Driven Labor Optimization

Advances in workforce management software have formalized these practices. Scheduling systems now track employee hours in real time and flag thresholds approaching overtime. Managers can then reassign or adjust shifts to remain within cost parameters.

These systems are marketed explicitly for labor cost control and overtime reduction (Celayix, 2023; Deputy, 2023). While their use is legal, they enable precise enforcement of scheduling strategies that prioritize cost efficiency over income stability.

The transition from manual scheduling to automated optimization has made these practices more consistent and less visible.

Legal Compliance Versus Practical Outcomes

The distinction between legality and fairness is central to understanding the industry.

Most of the practices described are legally compliant:

• Variable wages across sites
• Long shifts under 40 hours
• Assignment-based scheduling

The legal framework establishes minimum standards rather than equitable ones. As long as minimum wage and overtime requirements are technically met, broader concerns about income consistency or workload distribution fall outside regulatory scope.

Parallel Practices in Other Industries

The structural model observed in security appears in multiple sectors:

• Healthcare: Floating staff between units with variable pay structures
• Janitorial services: Contract-based wages tied to buildings
• Warehousing: Flexible staffing through agencies with controlled hours
• Retail and food service: Scheduling below full-time thresholds
• Logistics and trucking: Compensation tied to output or routes rather than time

These industries share a common feature: labor is managed as a variable cost aligned with contracts or operational demand, rather than as a stable employment relationship.

Structural Solutions and Collective Representation

Historically, the primary mechanism for stabilizing wages and working conditions in contract-driven industries has been collective bargaining.

Union agreements can establish:

• Standardized wage floors
• Overtime protections beyond statutory minimums
• Defined job classifications
• Limits on arbitrary reassignment

However, the effectiveness of such systems depends on representation. For collective bargaining to function as intended, unions must remain responsive to their membership and accountable in their negotiations.

At the same time, workers must recognize that dues function as a form of protection against inconsistent or bad-faith employment practices.

As industries expand and employment structures become more complex, even smaller employers may encounter conditions where formal representation becomes necessary to ensure predictable and equitable labor practices.

Conclusion

The security industry illustrates a broader labor pattern in which legal compliance coexists with structural instability. Contract-based wage determination, controlled scheduling, and software-driven optimization have created a system that is efficient for employers but often unpredictable for workers.

Without structural intervention, these practices are likely to continue and expand. The question is not whether the system can operate this way—it already does—but whether workers will have the mechanisms to influence how it evolves.

If you read this and it matters, help me keep it going: https://www.patreon.com/cw/WPSNews

References

Celayix. (2023). Security guard scheduling software and workforce management. https://www.celayix.com/industries/security-guard-officer-scheduling-software/

Deputy. (2023). Security workforce scheduling solutions. https://www.deputy.com/industry/security

U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Wage and hour division: Overtime pay. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime

U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa

#contractLabor #employmentPractices #laborLaw #overtimeRules #securityIndustry #wageStructure #workforceScheduling

Claim Journal News: Do Claims Against Musk Raise a Legal Issue for his Companies and Twitter Deal? https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2022/05/23/310603.htm #sexualharassmentclaims #employmentpractices #racediscrimination #NationalNews #Settlement #ElonMusk #lawsuits #twitter