Security Guard

Action of Security Guard

Do you feel the security guard took the right action? Would you have taken the same action? Why or why not?

Mr. Tuff, having had a four-year stint in the Marine Corps as a policeman, is still a fairly young and inexperienced person in the business world. The military is very strict when it comes to their procedures and policies and Mr. Tuff, now having firsthand knowledge in following rules, is using his experience to enable him to pursue a job as a security guard.

It seems Mr. Tuff had immediate and really strong opinions regarding the changes the security company was implementing and how it would affect his license. I don’t think he should have been quite as vocal right off the bat, and especially to impose his opinions to other security guards. He went to Mr. Hernandez, his immediate supervisor, regarding his take on the handling of a drunken person and how he thought it was in violation of his license. Mr. Hernandez gave him a good directive, to “contact the supervisor in charge, who would make the decision” to cover this major concern. (Beauchamp/Bowie, 2005, pg. 319). Although Mr. Hernandez made an off-handed remark regarding the actions of drunks, and some remarks about Mr. Tuff’s behavior since the policy change, his directive was still an answer to Mr. Tuff’s concern. The back of the license states “ we will obey all lawful orders and rules and regulations pertaining to security officers …” (Beauchamp/Bowie, 2005, pg. 318). Even later when a Sergeant from the Police Department concurred with Mr. Tuff’s opinion regarding license requirements, it was never brought out that contacting his immediate supervisor for a decision at the time of an incident, that the decision wouldn’t be to not contact the Police, which would thereby not be in violation of and/or following the terms of the manual or license. If the supervisor made a decision to not contact the Police, and some form of an incident did occur, the Police could take action against the company/supervisor. Mr. Tuff’s interpretation of this was that he could lose his license if he did what was now in the policies and procedures. He chose to continue with his negative opinions, which eventually resulted in his dismissal.

Would I have taken the same action and started mouthing off to anyone that would listen?

No, (why?) because this was managements decision and position on this matter. Management thought it was important enough to change its polices and procedures, and it is now up to me to follow them. If I feel that strongly opposed to them, then I need to find another place of employment.

Yes, (why not?), but I could have approached management first, to get clarification, before I started mouthing off. Perhaps the legal department or attorney’s thought it was wise to change the policies because of liability reasons? Perhaps there were insurance coverage issues that made it clear that nothing could happen on the property?

Do you feel it was unjust to fire the security guard?

No, I don’t, not after all that he had done. Mr. Tuff was given a free pass, if you will, when Mr. Hernandez “encouraged him to continue his job as usual, but under the new rules.” (Beauchamp/Bowie, 2005, pg. 319). He crossed the line, when in searching for validation and answers of his opinion, he would mention his company by name. His bad-mouthing and negative attitude continued with the other guards. Company policy prohibits talking to the local newspapers and Mr. Tuff blatantly disobeyed this policy when he contacted not only the newspaper, but the television network as well. It had finally reached the point where the company had no choice but to terminate Mr. Tuff. Being an employee of the company afforded Mr. Tuff access to confidential information that he was giving to the press. Even though it is understood that you don’t do this, it was not expressly indicated in the policies of the company. Speaking to the press was, and being in clear violation of this policy, the company was in its rights to fire Mr. Tuff. While this appears to be a case of whistleblowing, and is protected by a law, when