Marvin Thesis Final

CHAPTER I Introduction and Background The Problem and its Setting

Introduction

The investigation is about the Government Cost of Employed Private Security Guards in the selected municipalities/cities on government offices. Safe guard the premises with 24/7 Private Security Agencies together with their guards is their concern. Police are excellent protectors for private communities and centers. However, relying on public security may not be enough. A police officer cannot be available to guard the entire premises on a constant basis and other calls and crimes may take precedence. This is why many government officer in the Philippines turn to private security guards to handle their 24/7 hour security needs. A private security guard can guard the premises of government offices day and night and work with police to make sure that they are safe. In the event of an emergency, a private security guard will ensure an immediate response. Whereas, Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO), in its efforts to professionalize the industry, is desirous of standardizing the contract rate for security guards services, which rate must be adequate and conformity with current labor and social legislation. The wages and other benefits due to a security guard are covered by the labor code of the Philippines, as amended by laws and which is based on the minimum wage and allowance benefits required by law. The researcher is very much interested in determining the Government cost of Employed Private Security Guards in the selected municipalities/cities on government offices and so he conducted this research.

Background of the Study

The study is all about the cost of government employment of private security guards in government offices especially in the municipalities/cities of every selected locality. The researcher would like to determine the cost of government employment of private security guards in the government offices and the importance of their service in government offices instead of having police enforcement and local enforcer in its every locality.

The researcher would be able to investigate how much is the contract of private security agencies in the government offices, including the salary given to every security guard posted in government offices. The researcher would identify the legal basis of contract of private security guards base on the merit under the law of labor code of the Philippines. The researcher would also be able to know how the private security agencies rendering services, entered in the government offices.

Importance and Significance of the Study

There has been limited attention and interest given to the government cost of employment of private security guards of selected municipalities/cities in government offices. It is one of the reasons why we devote to study, as well as for the following objectives:

a.) To determine the cost of contract between government offices and private security agencies. b.) To emphasize the importance of private security guards in the government offices. c.) To identify the legal contract based on RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law).

We believe that by identifying the cost of government employment of private security guards in the government offices including the salary given to every security guard posted in every government offices. The researcher would be able to investigate and determine whether the legal contract cost in paying private security guards is implemented. Hence, the importance of the study.

Scope and Delimitation

This study would be conducted to determine the cost of government employment of private security guards in selected five municipalities/cities in Metro Manila. The

findings would apply only to the data gathered from the private security guards respondents, 2008-2009. The aspects looked into the legal contract of employing private security guards in government offices.

General purpose

: To determine the employment cost of private security guards posted in five selected municipalities/cities.

Subject matter

: The cost of government employment of private security guards in government offices.

Topics studied

: Private security guards in government offices, salary given by the private security agencies and the legal contract based on RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law)

Population

: Private security guards and government employees

Locale of the study: Selected five municipalities/cities in Metro Manila

Period of the study: School year 2008-2009

Statement of the Problem

1.) The demographic profile of the selected respondents in terms of:

1.1 Age

1.2 Gender

1.3 Educational Attainment

1.4 Name of Agency

1.5 Years of Service

2.) What is the distribution of the private security guards among the five selected municipalities/cities?

2.1 Municipality/city of Caloocan

2.2 Municipality/city of Valenzuela

2.3 Municipality/city of Quezon City

2.4 Municipality/city of Makati

2.5 Municipality/city of Pasay

3.) Is there a significant cost of government employment of private security guards in the government offices?

4.) What are the reasons of the respondents on why the city halls are employing private security guards?

Hypothesis

There is no significant cost of government employment of private security guards in the government offices.

Definition of Terms

1 Individual applicant (License to Possess) – any person who is applying for or renewing a license to possess firearms as well as permit to carry firearm outside residence. 2. Juridical Entity (License to Possess) – refers to any entity applying for a license to possess firearms through its duly authorized representative who is either the proprietor, manager and/or operator. 3. License – an authority or permit to possess, own, carry, deal, and manufacture firearms. In the case of private security agencies, company guards and government security units, this refers to an authority to operate. 4. Authorized Representative – any person designated and authorized by a business entity or law enforcement unit to apply for and obtain a license to possess, deal and/or manufacture firearms. With regard to Private Security Agencies, Company Guards and Government Security Units, this person is the designated proprietor, operator and/or manager. 5. Warehouse Personnel – any person who is designated and authorized to manage a private warehouse or storage area of firearms and ammunition or the different vaults of the firearms dealer and to conduct inventory thereof. 6. Vault Keeper – any person who is designated and authorized by a firearms dealer to secure and manage his or her own vault in the PNP-CSG-FED warehouse.

7. PNP-CSG-FED Supervised Storage and/or Warehouse – refers to a CSG, FED supervised and managed warehouse or storage where the different vaults of firearms dealers are safekept. 8. PTCFOR – a written authority issued to a person by the Chief of the Philippine National Police or his duly authorized representative which entitles him/her to possess and carry firearm outside of residence for the duration and purpose specified therein. 9. Security Guard or Watchman – any person who is licensed to render personal service to secure or watch over a private residence, business establishment, or buildings, compounds, and other areas and to conduct security inspection thereon. The terms, “Security Guard and Watchman” are generic and synonymous as far as this definition is concerned. 10. Security Officer – any person designated by the management of a security agency to supervise security guards/watchmen detailed in private residences, business establishments, buildings, compounds or other areas. 11. Private Detective/Investigator – any private individual who does detective or investigative work in behalf of another person or entity for compensation, reward or commission, other than members of the AFP, the PNP, the guards of BJMP, municipality or city jail guards or of any other law enforcement agencies of the government. 12. Private Security Agency – any entity which is either a sole proprietorship, a partnership or a private corporation which is licensed to recruit, train, and provide security guards to any person or entity to perform security services or consultation for a compensation. 13. Company Guard – is a security force maintained and operated by any private company/corporation utilizing any of its employees to watch, secure or guard its business establishment premises, compounds or properties. 14. Government Security Unit – is a security unit maintained and operated by any government entity other than the military or police, which is established and maintained for the purpose of securing the office or compound and/or extension of such government facility or utility. 15. Training Instructor – an individual who is accredited by the Philippine National Police-Civil Security Group-Security Agencies and Guards Supervision Division (PNPCSG-SAGSD) to teach security and related subjects in the Commission on Higher Government (CHED) institutions offering Bachelor of Science in Criminology Courses (BS Crim Courses), and/or in the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) licensed Security Guard Training Schools. 16. Training Officer – an individual who is accredited by PNP-CSG-SAGSD responsible in making training programs for the Security Guard Training Schools and/or CHED institutions offering BS Crim. Courses.

17. Training Director – an individual accredited by PNP-CSG-SAGSD and responsible in managing the Security Guard Training Schools and/or CHED institutions offering BS Crim. Courses. 18. Security Guard Training School – an institution licensed by TESDA and accredited by SAGSD to conduct pre-licensing, in-service training, supervisory training and other special courses to and for security guards in private agencies, companies and government units. 19. End-User or consumer – any person or agency or a business entity which requires the mandatory drug test. At CSG, it refers to either CSG-FED or CSG-SAGSD or both when processing applicant for license and renewal thereof. 20. Mandatory Drug Test – refers to compulsory submission of an applicant for license to undergo a drug testing as required by RA 9165. 21. Random Drug Test – refers to compulsory submission of a licensed warehouse personnel and/or vault keeper, private security personnel and security training personnel after having been employed to undergo drug testing as required by RA 9165. This is being conducted to selected individual or group of individuals without following a specific pattern and without prior notice.

CHAPTER II Review of Related Literature and Studies

Foreign Related Literature Studies One last term to define is cooperative effort. Operation Cooperation, the effort of which this literature review is a part, examines the following types of cooperation: ongoing, formal or informal meetings between law enforcement and security organizations to resolve common problems; promotion and recognition of professionalism in the training for both security and law enforcement; sharing of information in criminal investigations; joint planning for special events and emergencies in the community; sharing of research and resources; and collaboration in prosecuting and convicting perpetrators. Need for Cooperation The number of cooperative programs around the country testifies to the perceived importance of such programs. Why, in particular, is law enforcement - private security cooperation needed? These are a few of the reasons: • Calls for police service have increased significantly over the years. • “Resources to meet the increasing demand have dwindled. In most major cities, police personnel have declined . . . .” • Although some crime rates have declined in the last few years, overall rates are still relatively high, and it seems to “take more officers to make the same number of arrests as in the ’70s . . . . The result is that police necessarily tend to focus more narrowly on serious crimes, reducing or even eliminating the watchman and service functions which they traditionally provided.” • Some types of economic crime are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of most local law enforcement agencies. “Local police do not have sufficient investigative resources, nor do they have the expertise to track down sophisticated criminals. Again, private security is the immediate recourse open to corporations to prosecute criminals. • High-tech crimes tend to be “unusually difficult for law enforcement agencies to prevent and investigate”because they are often unfamiliar, complex, and transjurisdictional. A cooperative arrangement can “provide a central point of contact between government and the high-tech industry, which is eager to lend its assistance,”especially expertise and material resources.

• “When businesspeople are familiar with law enforcement agents, they are more likely to report crimes—it’s a matter of knowing who to contact. Also among the benefits of increased reporting are increased leads into other . . . crimes.” • The business community is a great untapped resource for solving community problems. Law enforcement should break away from its old mindset that cooperation with the private sector brings unwanted baggage. When businesses are encouraged by law enforcement to become active corporate citizens, they can make the community safer and create a better environment for their employees. Each sector can help the other fulfill its mission. In fact, given the large overlap of their concerns, “A failure to communicate is a nonsensical policy that can only hinder the social order.” History of Cooperation A certain amount of informal cooperation between law enforcement and private security practitioners has probably taken place since the beginning of formal law enforcement. The earliest examples of formal cooperation may be those between the federal government and security practitioners in the defense industry. Certainly that issue was the driving force behind the formation of the American Society for Industrial Security in 1955.A subsequent example of formal cooperation developed in the era of skyjacking. “Local police were stationed at security checks at concourse entrances and arrested many armed suspects before they reached the planes. Police officials confronted by manpower crises had to make a choice between staffing beats and positioning officers at airline security checkpoints. Today, passenger and baggage screening is generally carried out by private security firms that operate under contract to the airlines and who can communicate quickly with law enforcement agencies if assistance is needed.” Later, the Private Security Advisory Council was chartered by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration from 1972 to 1977 “to improve the crime prevention capabilities of private security and reduce crime in public and private places by reviewing the relationship between private security systems and public law enforcement agencies, and by developing programs and policies regarding private protection services that are appropriate and consistent with the public interest.” Among other projects, the council published advisory reports on false alarms, regulation of private security services, crime prevention through environmental design, ethics for security managers and employees, prevention of terrorism, “law enforcement and private security sources and areas of conflict and strategies for conflict resolution,” scope of legal authority of private security personnel, model security guard training curricula, and more. By the 1980s, several formal cooperative programs were in place. In the early 1980s, the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum was formed to address problems facing both law enforcement and the business community in that state. In 1983, the Dallas Police/ Private Security Joint Information Committee was formed. In 1986, the public sector-security sector liaison committees of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) formed a Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security Associations. By 1989 the Detroit area boasted at least four formal cooperative programs. In the early 1990s, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Operation Partnership brought together teams of two to four law enforcement and private security operations from given jurisdictions for three-day training courses. On returning home,

they were asked to submit quarterly reports on the progress of their cooperative programs. Operation Partnership training covers the history of law enforcement and private security, business and economics, future trends in law enforcement and private security, exemplary programs, identification of resources, scanning and assessing the environment, legal and ethical issues, and how to develop, evaluate, modify, present, and market an action plan. Academia has expressed interest in its own form of cooperation for some time. A 1980 paper by a professor of criminal justice called for academic programs in security studies that would be the equal of criminal justice studies. “Security and crime prevention studies can make numerous contributions to improved effectiveness in the control of crimes committed in the Private sector. Accordingly, these topics should be perceived as fully interactive elements of criminal justice and fully coequal partners.” Issues in Cooperation A recurring theme in the literature is conflict between law enforcement and private security. “Historically there has been a tension between public police and private security agents. This tension has several components. First, the roles and functions of public and private police are often unclear or poorly understood. While much public attention has been focused on the ‘police’ in recent years, there has been little public assessment of the privatepolice, despite the fact thatprivate policing has been growing exponentially over the past decade.” As early as 1978, the Private Security Advisory Council was able to outline such areas of conflict as lack of mutual respect, lack of communication, lack of cooperation, lack of law enforcement knowledge of private security, perceived competition, lack of standards in security, and perceived corruption on both sides. Status Security officers have long been known by the unflattering term “rent-a-cops,” and lawenforcement officers often hold them in contempt; by contrast, the stature of police hasbeen high since the professionalization efforts of the 1960s. The low esteem is partly due to the “lack of selection standards for private guards, resulting in guards who are not respected by the law enforcement officer, [and the] lack of standards for training of private guards, resulting in a lack of confidence on the part of the law enforcement officer that the guard would not be a problem during a criminal incident.” In sum, “Many of the problems in communication between police and private security are rooted in the working officer’s perception of the security guard.” Law enforcement officials sometimes state that private security is not accountable to anyone. Others disagree. Private Security is accountable to customers, regulators, and the market, which penalizes them for failing to meet specific obligations. Also, private security practitioners can be fired for sub-optimal performance, a threat that few law enforcement officials face. Like the police, they are also accountable to civil and criminal law and the media.

In fact, private security sometimes sees law enforcement as the agency that always comes after the fact, has little accountability for crime, and shows disdain for private security. Private Security officers indeed receive less training than most police, but even law enforcement practitioners observe that “the key is to ensure that professional level training for the specific duties and jobs to be undertaken by the private sector is provided.”Before law enforcement would feel comfortable contracting out some of its service to private security “the private sector security industry must be prepared to accept that only its professional members will be asked to share in the work of the public police.” The status problem is not new. In a national study during the early 1980s, “Law enforcement executives and line officers (patrol and detective personnel) both rated the performance of private security personnel as fair to poor and the overall contributions of private security as only somewhat effective . . . . Private Security was not perceived as an equal partner in crime prevention and control, but rather as a junior or silent partner.” However, some evidence suggests that the relationship may be improving: A recent survey of 127 police officers and 109 security professionals in Michigan revealed interesting findings on the relationship between public law enforcement and private security . . . . Nearly two-thirds of all security respondents have prior law enforcement experience while 43 percent of police officers worked in the security field before joining law enforcement agencies . . . . Security professionals were more likely to believe they were equal partners than were police officers. Police officers were more likely than security professionals to rank the police/securityrelationship positively. . . . Security professionals appear more optimistic and hopeful than police officers in evaluating various strategies for improved relations. The strategies considered include, among others, improving interagency communications, creating joint databases, training exchanges, and conducting regular meetings of agency representatives . . . . Both police and security professionals predicted greater cooperation between the two sectors in the future. Competition Another barrier comes from market competition. Some observers feel that as private security grows, law enforcement (especially overtime and off-duty work) may have to shrink. Thus, law enforcement practitioners may fear that cooperating with private security will erode their own responsibilities and opportunities. In fact, the knife cuts both ways. When police provide guard duty for pay, some securitycompanies see that practice as government-subsidized competition. A 1996 lawsuit filed in federal court by four private security companies in Virginia accused the state and seven localities of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and of price-fixing. “Since the police officers are using their uniforms, badges, guns, and cars supplied by the government for off-duty private security work], it creates unfair competition. The government basically is subsidizing private business,” said a lawyer representing the security companies. The suit was dismissed but at this writing is on appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William C. Cunningham and Todd H. Taylor, Private Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest Report I (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1985), p. 189. Mahesh K. Nalla and Donald Hummer, “Relations Between Police and Security in Michigan,” report published by the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 1997. Greene, Seamon, and Levy, p. 6. “Summary of a Feasibility Conference,” p. 12.

Ignorance To a great extent, law enforcement practitioners are unaware of the role and resources of private security. Why? “The private sector has put forth little effort to educate the police as to the impact of corporate losses and how the impact is passed on to the citizen/customer, nor the loss/benefit ratios utilized in determining the acquisition and commitment of security resources.” Further, “there is a definite perception of differing motivating factors (profit vs. the protection of citizenry), when, in actuality, both law enforcement and private security are motivated by a very common factor—loss prevention.” False Alarms False alarms both divide and unite law enforcement and private security. On one hand, alarms are a private security activity that has become a law enforcement headache. “Unnecessary calls for police service due to false burglar alarms have grown into a tremendous problem. Burglar alarms serve as useful deterrents to crime, but the amount of time and money police spend responding to the 7 million to 15 million or more false alarm calls every year has become intolerable to many law enforcement agencies. Projected growth in the use of alarms portends a worsening problem.” On the other hand, the issue has created several occasions for cooperation among local law enforcement agencies, alarm companies, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association, Central Station Alarm Association, and Security Industry Association. Refusal to Recognize Authority Sometimes private security would like to participate more fully in stopping crime but is prevented from doing so. “Armed private security officers in Northern Virginia have the power of arrest, yet are prevented from carrying out that authority by magistrates and commonwealth attorneys who are reluctant to accept an official summons issued by a security officer. Security is a legitimate crime-fighting body—separate from public law enforcement yet dependent on its cooperation.” Government’s Relationship with Business

In some places, government is unfriendly to business; in others, the relationship is more cooperative. The latter type of relationship led to the development of one of the most successful, longest-lived law enforcement- private security cooperative programs, the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (WLEEF), which includes law enforcement leaders of that state’s major cities and counties, state and federal law enforcement professionals, and “captains of industry.” The rationale behind WLEEF is that “although there are those who would impugn it and attach negative images to the concept, ours is a democracy supported by capitalism in a free enterprise system. Therefore, it is important that law enforcement be sure that its relationships transcend not only our neighborhoods and various units of government, but that we develop a viable interface in the commercial sphere in the State of Washington.” Constitutional Issues An issue that does not necessarily cause conflict but may complicate cooperation has to do with legal accountability. In some ways, private security’s legal accountability may not be as great as that of law enforcement. On the other hand, when private security acts alongside or under the direction of law enforcement, it may be acting under “color of state law,” meaning it must meet the same legal standards that apply to law enforcement. Joint Council’s Issues Finally, the Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security Associations raises important issues by asking the following questions, to which it suggests all the answers are “yes”: • Should the law enforcement officer see his or her private security counterpart as a peer professional? • Should the law enforcement and property protection objectives of law enforcement be supported by involved corporate and private security agency leaders? • Can the net cost for both private and public security be reduced through coordinated actions? • Can the corporation’s profit line be increased through cooperative relationships with law enforcement? • Can corporate citizenship be enhanced through cooperative actions with law enforcement? • Is there an element of risk on the part of a corporation in joining hands with a law enforcement agency? • Is there an element of risk on the part of the law enforcement agency in providing police resources and criminal history record information to the private sector?

Cooperative programs Types of Cooperation fall into the following broad, somewhat overlapping categories: informal, formal, contractual, familiarity/goodwill, topic-specific, and umbrella.

Formal versus Informal Setting up by-laws, sectors, committees, and funding is very difficult and timeconsuming. For that reason, some groups of law enforcement and private security officials opt to cooperate informally. For example, a New Jersey partnership created by AlliedSignal, Inc., is informal and unnamed. “Begun in 1996, the partnership has evolved into an informal network that allows local, state, and federal law enforcement officials based in the area to meet with security professionals and top executives in some of the county’s [Morris County, NJ] Fortune 500 companies.” The partnership holds three to four breakfast meetings or other get-togethers per year. “The sessions have no formal agenda. After a speaker speaks, participants can give or receive advice on security projects or discuss how corporate security professionals can help police solve or prevent criminal activity . . . The meetings have also been used by security professionals to discuss common problems, such as how several companies with employees overseas could work together if their workers had to be suddenly evacuated from international trouble spots.” By contrast, some groups opt to organize formally, usually in the hope that structure will increase longevity. One such group is the Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance (VAPPSA), which sponsors educational presentations at its meetings, works to apply problemsolving approaches to public safety issues, conducts shared training programs, maintains a public/private information and resource network, and tracks and tries to influence legislation. VAPPSA features by-laws, membership dues, voting and nonvoting membership categories, a board of directors, and half a dozen formal committees. Interestingly, “the VAPPSA members who initiated the group did not realize how much time it would take to establish by-laws, create a formal structure, remedy legal entanglements, and create momentum . . . . The founders realized early on that their attention could easily be diverted from the original vision and get lost in the swamp of organizational development.” On the plus side, VAPPSA has remained in existence since 1991. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minutes and statements from the Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security Associations, 1986-87. David R. Green, “Joining Forces Against Crime,” Security Management, May 1998, pp. 95-98.

Contractual Some cooperative programs go beyond being formal to being literally contractual. Such programs are typically business improvement districts (BIDs) or other forms of privatization. BIDs can be formed in several ways. “In New York, the formation of a BID can be initiated by property owners, by a local development corporation or a Chamber of Commerce, by a local Community Board or that area’s City Council member, or by the mayor or a mayoral agency. Any commercial, retail, or industrial area in New York city may apply for BID status through any such sponsor.” Once the BID is approved by the government, a special assessment is added to the property tax bills of all businesses within its geographical area. The money is collected by the government, then returned to the BID for the purposes stated in the BID’s official plan. Typically, BIDs use the money for capital improvements, marketing of the area, sanitation, and security.. Often, the security contractor hired by the BID contacts the police when an arrest needs to be made, and its security officers serve as extra eyes and ears for the police. In return, the police sometimes provide training and crime information to the security contractor or to in-house security departments of businesses that belong to the BID. BIDs divide public safety responsibilities in this way: “The public police have typically regulated social order outside of buildings, while the private police have typically regulated order within a building or within building complexes. More importantly, whether recognized or not, these groups interact in fundamental ways all of which contribute to the ‘security net’ within central business districts. In essence the ‘horizontal and vertical’ safety of any center city business area is greatly enhanced with cooperative public and private police arrangements. In other cases, law enforcement agencies or local governments actually contract out work that was formerly performed by law enforcement. Such arrangements necessarily involve cooperation between law enforcement and private security. For example, to relieve its police department from the burden of investigating some 500 badcheck complaints each year, the city of Kentwood, Michigan, contracted with a private firm to do the work. The result is that investigations are no longer backlogged, merchants have an effective means for recovering their losses, and police have more time for their other duties. One of the most famous instances of contracting out involves the Corrections Corporation of America, which builds and operates prisons. One observer notes that “contracting out enables police officers to concentrate on the tasks for which

they are trained and can be most effective . . . [freeing up] a well-trained, professional police force from administrative and routine duties to concentrate on tackling crime . . . .” Familiarity and Goodwill Programs Some cooperative programs exist mainly to familiarize individual law enforcement and private security professionals with each other. Law Enforcement Appreciation Nights. Typically, the liaison committee in a private security organization will host an annual law enforcement appreciation night. For example, the Law Enforcement Liaison Committee of the Greater Milwaukee Chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) holds annual law enforcement appreciation nights for about 100 police chiefs, sheriffs, and executives of federal law enforcement agencies in southeastern Wisconsin. The first benefit of such meetings is that key parties get to know each other. The second benefit is the actual cooperative work that develops from those relationships. For example, a member of the chapter assisted the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department on security surveys, security policies and procedures, and security awareness to help the department in its new role of providing security at several county facilities. Directories The ASIS Greater Milwaukee Chapter publishes a directory of all Wisconsin police chiefs and state and federal law enforcement contacts. The chapter distributes the directory to ASIS members and law enforcement agencies. Awards An effort similar to law enforcement appreciation nights is the awarding of honors by security organizations to law enforcement. It is cooperation in the sense that security thereby encourages law enforcement to perform in ways that benefit private security For example, the John J. Duffy Memorial Award, given by the National Council of Investigation and Security Services to the Threat Management Unit (TMU) of the Los Angeles Police Department in 1997, “spotlighted the effectiveness of the police program. But it also underlined the necessary dialog between law enforcement and private security and the complexities of stalking crimes.” NCISS lauded the TMU for aggressively enforcing the anti-stalking laws on the books instead of working for the closure of public records, which would hinder private investigations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bob Stewart, p. 14. Ronald L. Kuhar and Jon C. Paul, “The Milwaukee Experience,” ASIS Dynamics, July/August 1996, pp. 5-7. Directory, ASIS and Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, 1995. “Security Group Honors Anti-stalking Police Unit,” SECURITY, July 1997, pp. 7-8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Umbrella Programs Many cooperative programs are best described as umbrella programs, as they are designed to develop law enforcement – private security relationships, teams, and task forces that address a wide range of concerns. One of the most notable is the

Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum, mentioned earlier, which, among other activities, funds a statewide loaned-executive program to enhance management of local police agencies; provides support for the Law Enforcement Executive Journal, the nation’s first law enforcement/business publication; sponsored legislation on the regulation and training of private security personnel and on computer crime; and created an “Economic Crime Task Force to assess the nature and extent of white-collar crime in the state, develop strategies to reduce such crime, promote appropriate legislation initiatives and revisions, and collect and disseminate information on economic crime.” Similarly, the Downtown Detroit Security Executive Council (DDSEC), which includes corporate security executives and local, state, and federal law enforcement professionals, tackles such projects as identifying security problems from police reports and incidents reported to private security and promoting crime prevention through environmental design in new construction and renovation projects. Likewise, the Business/Law Enforcement Alliance (BLEA), created in 1994, is a formal partnership between California businesses and city, county, state, and federal law en-forcement agencies. An arm of the California Peace Officers Association, it includes some 200 participants from various industries and law enforcement and has a 10-member board of directors. BLEA’s purpose is to create a link between the California business community and law enforcement so that both can work together to solve specific problems in the state. “The organization’s leadership recognizes, for example, that some law enforcement agencies do not have the specialized expertise, tools, or time to investigate and prosecute certain high-tech offenders.” BLEA is currently working on three projects: reducing check fraud, stopping the theft of rental equipment, and reducing false alarms. It may soon develop alliances with trade organizations to combat audio and video piracy. Another umbrella program is the Baltimore County Police and Private Security Association, which meets once a month, has a newsletter, organizes joint training, works on legislation and reducing false alarms, addresses specific crimes (such as graffiti), organizes training of security officers to make better witnesses, and conducts other activities. The Area Police-Private Security Liaison Program (APPL), formed in 1985, consists of high-ranking New York City Police Department members and respected security directors in New York City. “The program’s main goals are to engage in cooperative efforts to protect people and property, exchange information to aid in the accomplishment of mutual goals, [and] eliminate the ‘credibility gap’ between police and private security.” Police members provide information on local crime trends, patterns, and incidents; offer expertise to help private security protect assets and clientele; and provide an atmosphere conducive to trust and cooperation. Private security members learn how to cooperate with and help the police, and they offer expertise in technology, building security and aset protection. The group holds quarterly regional meetings with speeches on specific topics. Members train each other and work together on legislation. In Missouri, the Creve Coeur Joint Crime Prevention Program consists of the Creve Coeur Police Department, Monsanto Corporate Security and St. John’s Mercy Medical Center Safety and Security Department. It has initiated a community-wide project to develop a mobile crime prevention display and command center trailer for the education and safety of the community. It holds Neighborhood Watch appreciation awards dinners to recognize

citizens of the community for their efforts in assisting the police and preventing crime. Other activities include a bike rodeo with a crime prevention theme; crime prevention booths at local festivals; participation in National Night Out; Halloween parties for children; crime prevention displays at program members’ sites; one-day seminars at program members’ sites on sexual assault, burglary prevention, drug and alcohol abuse, traffic safety, vacation safety, and security checks; and a phone notification system to alert neighborhood and business watch groups about crimes.Some umbrella programs operate on the national level. For example, the Private Sector Liaison Committee of IACP has produced, for national distribution to law enforcement And private security practitioners, several resource and guideline documents. Examples include “Non-Sworn Alarm Responder Guidelines: Guidelines for Employers and Law Enforcement” and “False Alarm Perspectives: A Solution-Oriented Resource.” Other papers have addressed product tampering, workplace drug crimes, and workplace violence. Recently, such efforts have been able to reach a wider audience by being posted on the Internet (www.amdahl.com/ext/iacp), which was itself an instance of cooperation, as the site space was donated by Amdahl Corporation. Similarly, since the early 1980s, the Law Enforcement Liaison Committee (LELC) of ASIS has promoted cooperation by sponsoring seminars and presentations on (1) security and police issues, such as improving communications and working relationships; (2) trends in outsourcing and privatization; (3) training law enforcement personnel about private security functions; and (4) encouraging the establishment of law enforcement and security partnerships. In the late 1980s the LELC produced a video describing the roles and typical functions of private security. The video was distributed to virtually every major police training academy in the United States. The LELC has also worked to develop a closer association with such law enforcement organizations as IACP and the National Sheriffs’ by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association. In 1997, the LELC provided the initiative for a national project (supported Anthony M. Voelker, “Area Police–Private Security Liaison Program,” New York City Police Department document. Circa 1988. “1991 Annual Report,” Creve Coeur (Missouri) Joint Crime Prevention Program. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------to develop guidelines for establishing and improving partnerships between public law enforcement and private security. Trends The literature reflects a number of trends that are affecting or will affect cooperation between law enforcement and private security. The most powerful trend is the continued growth of the private security industry, both in real terms and relative to law enforcement. In 1987 the director of the U.S. Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) wrote that “cooperation becomes increasingly essential with the growth of the private security industry.” In policing, “resources to meet the increasing demand have dwindled. In most major cities, police personnel have declined, and the number of police employees per 1,000 population dropped 10 percent between 1975 and 1985. Shrinking tax revenues throughout the country and outright taxpayer revolts . . . have curtailed

growth in government. Police, like other public administrators, have become familiar with cutback management.”Another trend is the change in law enforcement’s approach to much of its work. The philosophies of community policing, neighborhood-oriented policing, and problem-oriented policing all call on law enforcement to cooperate with the community, which includes private security. Similarly, “where law enforcement is actively involved in crime prevention activities, cooperation with private security is better because the interests of the two agencies are more closely aligned.” For example, at the Detroit Police Department, security industry representatives sit on the Chief’s Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. In addition, increasing professionalism in private security has slowly been improving law enforcement’s attitude toward security practitioners, and “each successful contact aids in establishing further ties and acts as a building block for increased communication and joint programs.” Another trend is the private sector’s increasing need to prosecute. “[C]orporations have been deterred from criminally prosecuting their employees by the prospects of bad publicity, unsympathetic juries, counter lawsuits, and other real and perceived problems. Instead, employers frequently settle for the offender’s dismissal or resignation. The current reluctance of the business world to fight its internal crime wave with a joint private-public offensive cannot last forever, however. The entrance of the high-tech white-collar criminal, whose skillful predations can prove disastrous for a corporation, will likely be the most significant catalyst bringing together the private sector and the various components of the criminal justice system for mutual assistance.” Also driving cooperation is the evolutionary loss of preexisting relationships. “Informal levels of communication and cooperation are dissipating as private security firms promote managers more from within rather than from the field of law enforcement. The ‘good ole boy’ network cannot be relied upon for communication in future years.” Finally, the issue of privatization is likely to continue to drive cooperation. According to a former director of NIJ, “nearly as much money is now paid by governments to private security companies as is spent for public law enforcement by the federal and state governments combined.” There are many examples of privatization requiring cooperation between law enforcement and private security. “Instead of using regular police officers for security and crowd control at its civic center and other city-owned buildings, Phoenix contracts that service to Anderson Agency, Inc. . . . The company’s marketing director says lower costs are not the only benefit the city receives from its private security force. ‘Our men are trained to prevent things from happening, while police officers are trained to stop crimes in progress or solve them after they have happened.’ . . . In New York City, badge wearing employees of a private company patrol streets in search of cars with outstanding parking tickets.” The Future An experienced participant in law enforcement–private security collaborations makes these comments about the possible future of cooperation: This interaction will probably produce different benefits for each participant, including enhanced professionalization of public law enforcement. Corporate people eventually will learn to operate more comfortably with some of the openness and public accessibility required of criminal justice agencies. Private sector executives will also learn to interact with people who are action-oriented, who show a great deal of initiative, and whose freshness in attacking

problems is devoid of some of the intrigue and subtleties that frequently are found in the corporate bureaucracy. On the other side, law enforcement officials will be exposed to a higher degree of organizational sophistication. They will learn to view corporate problems through the eyes of chief executive officers, upwardly mobile corporate managers, and stockholders . . . . They will learn, too, that realistic planning and effective marketing are basic to survival. The police managers also will become sensitized to the fact that corporate entities, unlike police agencies, must measure up to competing firms or go out of business. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter A. Holmes, “Taking Public Services Private,” Nation’s Business, August 1985, pp. 20-22. Shanahan, “Private Enterprise and the Public Police: The Professionalizing Effects of a New Partnership,” p. 455. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Local Related Literature and Studies . GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF SECURITY GUARDS AND SIMILAR PERSONNEL IN THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY. . For the purpose of ensuring the private security personnel of their rights to the minimum benefits mandated by law, these guidelines are hereby issued for compliance of all concerned. SECTION 1. Coverage. - This issuance shall apply to all private security agencies or operators, their principals or clients, all companies allowed to directly employ security guards and to all security guards, whether agency or company employees, for compliance and entitlement, respectively, to existing labor standards laws and benefits. Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - For the purpose of this Guidelines, the following terms are defined: a. "Principal" refers to any employer, company or establishment to whom a security job, service or work is provided by a security service contractor, whether or not the arrangement is covered by a written contract. b. "Security service contractor" is synonymous with a private security agency which means any person, association, partnership, firm or private corporation, who contracts, recruits, trains, furnishes or posts any security guard or similar personnel to individuals, corporations, offices and organizations, whether private or public, for their security needs as the Philippine National Police may approve. Sec. 3. Employment status.

3.1 Employer-employee relationship. - The security service contractor is the employer of its security guard and similar personnel. The principal where the security guards are assigned is considered an "indirect employer" for unpaid wages and other wage related benefits based on the joint and several liability of the principal with the service contractor under the Labor Code, unless the private security agency is owned, managed or controlled by the prin-cipal or the facts show that the principal controls the manner by which the security service is performed or where the security guard is directly hired by the establishment. 3.2 Probationary employment. - The probationary period of a newly hired security guard or similar personnel in the private security industry shall not exceed six (6) months. While engaged on probationary basis, his/her services may be terminated for failure to meet the reasonable standards or criteria made known by the security agency/employer to the guard at the time of engagement or for just cause/s. 3.3 Regular employment. - Any security guard or similar personnel in the private security industry who is allowed to work after the probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Sec. 4. Service contracts. - The security service contractor and/or the principal shall produce or submit the original copy of their service contract when directed to do so by the Regional Director or his/her duly authorized representative. The service contract shall stipulate, among others: a. A statement that the security guards/personnel shall be paid not less than the minimum wage and other benefits under the Labor Code and other existing laws; b. An escalation clause to immediately effect the common provision in the wage orders that the prescribed increase in the wage rates of the workers shall be borne by the principal or client of the service contractors and the contracts shall be deemed amended accordingly. c. A statement that security service contractor and/or the principal shall comply with Social Security, Employees Compensation, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and Home Development Mutual Fund laws on employees' coverage or membership. d. The kind or nature of security service. e. The schedule of payment of 13th month pay per P. D. 851 and re-tirement pay per R. A. 7641. Sec. 5. Employment contracts. 5.1 The security service contractor shall provide his security guards, detachment commanders/supervisors and other security personnel, a copy of the employment contract duly signed by the parties which shall contain the terms and conditions of employment, such as those provided under Section 5 hereof.

5.2 For every assignment of a security guard/personnel to a principal, the duty detail order shall contain the following, among others: a. Description of job, work or service to be performed b. Hours and days of work, work shift and applicable premium, overtime and night shift pay rates. Sec. 6. Terms and conditions of employment. 6.1 The security guards and similar personnel in the employ of any private security agency or company should be duly licensed and must have passed the physical and neuro-psychiatric examinations required by the PNP. They are entitled to the mandatory benefits under the Labor Code and other existing laws, including coverage by SSS, ECC, Philhealth and HDMF. 6.2 The basic wage rate of security guard/personnel shall not be less than the minimum wage rate for the non-agricultural sector in the Region where he/she is assigned, regardless of the nature of business of the principal, or in the Region where the security guard has been engaged, whichever is higher. Where a security guard/personnel is recruited through a branch office in another Region where the principal is likewise located, the non-agricultural minimum wage rate applicable in the workplace of the principal shall govern. Security guards or other personnel employed and/or assigned by a security service contractor in one Region but who are transferred, moved or assigned to another Region shall be paid based on the more beneficial wage rate. In case of transfer or reassignment to another principal within a Region, the wage rates may be adjusted provided that the same shall not be less than the applicable regional minimum wage rate. 6.3. Statutory Benefits. - The security guards/personnel are entitled to not less than the following benefits depending on the working hours, work shift and workdays under the given conditions, which benefits should be included in the cost distribution in the service contract: a. Basic salary for all actual workdays and for the ten regular holidays (as holiday pay) which must not be lower than the minimum wage rates above described and to be computed by using the factors recommended herein or by more favorable practice of the employer. In addition, one hundred percent (100%) of the basic salary is due whenever work is rendered on a regular holiday. b. Allowance in addition to the basic salary, if any, is prescribed by the applicable Regional Wage Order.

c. Premium pay of 30% of the daily rate for work on special days and rest days, which is increased to 50% whenever work is performed on coinciding rest days and special days. d. Overtime pay for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours a day, equivalent to at least 25% of the regular wage rate on ordinary days and 30% on regular holidays, special days and rest days. e. Night shift pay equivalent to 10% of the regular hourly rate for work rendered between 10:00 pm to 6:00 am of the following day. f. Five (5) day service incentive leave for every year of service which benefits can be availed of during days of absence and, if not used, are convertible into its cash equivalent. A proportionate leave benefit per month may be derived by dividing 5 days by 12 months times the daily rate. g. Paternity leave of seven (7) days with full pay. This leave shall be granted before, during or after childbirth or after spontaneous miscarriage by his legal spouse. The paternity leave with pay is granted for only four deliveries, including miscarriage. h. 13th month pay which is 1/12 of the total basic salary earned within a calendar year. 6.4 Recommended Computation of Equivalent Monthly Rates Using the applicable daily wage rate (ADR) and a factor representing the number of paid days in a year, the following procedures are recommended to facilitate computation of equivalent monthly rates (EMR). For those who are required to work everyday including Sundays or rest days, special days and regular holidays: EMR = (ADR x 391.5) / 12 where 391.5 is derived from: 302.0 18.0 2.6

-

ordinary working days 9 regular holidays x 200% a regular holiday on last Sunday of August x 200% + (30% of 200%)

66.3 51 rest days x 130% 2.6 2 special days x 130% 391.5 days considered paid in a year For those who are considered paid on all days including unworked Sundays or rest days, special days and regular holidays: EMR = (ADR x 365) / 12

where 365 days derived from: 302 2 51 10 365 days

-

ordinary working days special days rest days regular holidays

For those who do not work and are not considered paid on Sundays/ rest days: EMR = (ADR x 314.6) / 12 where 314.6 is derived from: 302.0 ordinary working days 2.6 2 special days (if worked) x 130% 10.0 regular holidays 314.6 days considered paid in a year For those who do not work and are not considered paid on Saturdays and Sundays or rest days EMR = (ADR x 262.6) / 12 where 262.6 is derived from: 250.0 2.6 10.0 262.6 days

ordinary working days 2 special days (if worked) x 130% regular holidays

By using the above indicated factors, the basic wage for the worked days and holiday pay for the 10 regular holidays are included in the monthly rates. Thirty percent (30%) rest day premium has been integrated in factor 391.5 for all the Sundays/rest days in a year includ-ing the last Sunday of August and in factors 314.6 and 262.6 for the two special days (November 1 and December 31) under Executive Order No. 203 of 1987. Not included in the above formula is the premium pay due an employee whenever work is rendered on an ordinary working day proclaimed by the President as a special day (that is other than Nov. 1 and Dec. 31). 6.5 Other Mandatory Benefits. In appropriate cases, security guards/similar per-sonnel are entitled to the mandatory benefits as listed below, although the same may not be included in the monthly cost distribution in the contracts, except the required premiums for their coverage:

a. Maternity benefit as provided under the SS Law; b. Separation pay if the termination of employment is for authorized cause as provided by law and as enumerated below: Half-Month Pay Per Year of Service, but in no case less than One Month Pay, if separation is due to: 1. Retrenchment or reduction of personnel effected by management to prevent serious losses; 2. Closure or cessation of operation of an establishment not due to serious losses or financial reverses; 3. Illness or disease not curable within a period of 6 months and continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to the employee's health or that of co-employees; or 4. Lack of service assignment for a continuous period of 6 months. One Month Pay Per Year of Service, if separation is due to: 1. Installation of labor-saving device, such as replacement of employees by equipment/machinery; 2. Redundancy, as when the position of the employee has been found to be surplusage or unnecessary in the operation of the agency; 3. Impossible reinstatement of the employee to his/her former position or to a substantially equivalent position for reasons not attributable to the fault of the employer, as when the reinstatement ordered by a competent authority cannot be implemented due to closure or cessation of op-erations of the establishment/employer, or the position to which the employee is to be reinstated no longer exists and there is no substan-tially equivalent position to which he/she can be assigned. c. Cash income benefits under the State Insurance Fund in case of work-related sickness or other contingencies. d. Retirement pay granted by R. A. 7641 to any security guard/personnel who retires under an applicable employer plan or policy. For this purpose, the security service contractor shall create or put up a trust fund for retirement benefit. The Trust Fund Agreement shall be executed by and between the trustor and trustee in favor of the employee-beneficiary for payment of re-tirement benefit in accordance with R. A. 5487 and R. A. 7641. The Fund shall be administered and maintained by a trust company, bank, in-vestment house, pre-need company or corporation duly authorized to perform trust function exclusively for collective investment or re-investment of certain money received in its

capacity as trustee, or similar arrangement as may be agreed upon in ac-cordance with law. As such, any payment for retirement benefits collected in advance by the contractor from the principal/s shall be deposited by the contractor/trustor to the trustee in favor of the security guard as benefit upon retirement or when his/her employment is terminated due to authorized causes. e. Other benefits granted by law, individual or collective agreement or company policy or practice. Sec. 7. Deductions from salary, - No deduction shall be made from the salary of the security guards/personnel, except for: a. SSS contribution b. EC contribution c. HDMF contribution d. Philhealth contribution e. Withholding tax from income, provided a proper withholding tax receipt is issued to the employee before the filing of income tax return every year f. Union dues, if applicable g. Other deductions authorized by Sec. 8. Liability and responsibilities of contractors and clients/principals. 8.1 Joint and several liability. - When the security service contractor fails to pay the wages of its security guards/personnel, the principal shall be jointly and severally liable with the security service contractor to the extent of the work performed by such employees under the contract, in the same manner and extent that the principal is liable to its direct employees. If there are wage increases or adjustments after the execution of the service contract, the prescribed increases in the wage rates of guards shall be borne by the principal and the service contract shall be deemed amended accordingly. In the event that the principal fails to pay the prescribed increases, the security service contractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the principal. The security guards' contractual relationship is with their employer, the security ser-vice contractor. Thus, their immediate recourse for payment of wage increase before litigation is with their direct employer, the security service contractor. In order for the security service contractor to comply with the new rates, the consideration paid by the principal for the security guards' wages has to be adjusted in conformity with the mandated wage increase. In case of finding of violations on wages and other labor standards due the security guards, the DOLE Regional Director shall serve summons to both the security service con-tractor and the principal to determine the extent of liability of the parties. 8.2 Solidary liability. - For purposes of immediate relief, the principal shall be deemed as the direct employer of the security guard/personnel in any of the following cases, and

therefore shall be solidarily liable for whatever monetary claims the security guard/personnel may have against his employer: a. When the security service contractor is found to be engaged in labor-only contract-ing; contracting out of work which will either displace its employees or reduce their regular work hours or any other prohibited activity; b. When the security service contractor is declared guilty of unfair labor practice, i.e., contracting out of a job, work or service being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to selforganization; or c. When a violation of the relevant provisions of the Labor Code has been established by the Regional Director in the exercise of his/her enforcement powers. The principal shall also be deemed solidarily liable with the security service contractor to the extent of accrued claims and benefits that the latter may owe to its security guards/personnel in the following instances: a. When the license or business permit of the security service contractor is cancelled, revoked or not renewed by the competent authority, or b. When the contract between the principal and the security service contractor is preterminated for reasons not attributable to the fault of the latter. 8.3. Responsibilities and Obligations of Security Service Contractors and Principals in the Execution of Service Contracts. - The service contracts or agreements between a security service contractor and its principal/s shall ensure compliance with the minimum wage and other labor standards under the laws, including the mandatory coverage by the SSS, EC, Philhealth and HDMF. Government agencies or instrumentalities engaging security services from private security agencies shall likewise observe compliance with all labor laws and shall require the security service contractor to submit, among others requirements and as part of their bid, an under-taking to pay their workers the above benefits. 8.4. Keeping of records. - The principals as indirect employers shall keep and maintain their own separate records or files on the assignment of security guards in their premises during the period of the service contract, which shall be open for inspection and verification by this Department. The security agency, however, as the direct employer shall observe the rule on general record keeping under the Labor Code, as amended. Sec. 9. Right to security of tenure and due process. 9.1 Security guards and similar personnel who have become regular employees shall enjoy security of tenure in their employment as provided by law. Their services can only be terminated for just or authorized causes after due process.

Termination for a just cause or causes as stated in Art. 281 of the Labor Code does not entitle the security guard/personnel to separation pay, unless otherwise provided in the em-ployer policy or individual contract or collective agreement. 9.2 Notice of Termination. - In case of termination of employment due to authorized causes provided in Art. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code and in the succeeding subsection, the employer shall serve a written notice on the security guard/personnel and the DOLE at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. 9.3 Reserved Status. - A security guard or similar personnel may be placed in a workpool or on reserved status due to lack of service assignments after expiration or termination of the service contract with the principal where he/she is assigned, or due to the temporary suspension of agency operations. No security guard or personnel can be placed in a workpool or on reserved status in any of the following situations: (a) after expiration of a service contract if there are other principals where he/she can be assigned; (b) as a measure to constructively dismiss the security guard; and (c) as an act of retaliation for filing complaints against the employer on violations of labor laws, among others. If, after a period of 6 months, the security agency/employer cannot provide work or give an assignment to the reserved security guard, the latter can be dismissed from service and shall be entitled to separation pay as described in subsection 5.6. Security guards on reserved status who accept employment in other security agencies or employers before the end of the above six-month period may not be given separation pay. 9.4. Preventive suspension. - Subject to the constitutional rights of the workers to security of tenure and the right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Art. 282 of the Labor Code, a security guard/personnel may be preventively suspended if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to life or property of the employer, its principal or the guard's co-workers. No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The security agency shall thereafter reinstate the security guard/personnel in his/her former position or it may extend the period of suspension, provided that during the period of extension, the agency pays the wages and other benefits due the guard/personnel. The employer shall designate a day, time and place within the period of preventive suspension, with notice to the employee, to hold a fact-finding investigation thus enabling the suspended employee to be heard and assisted by a counsel or representative, if he/she so desires, of the charge against him/her and thereby be exonerated; or, upon the employee's failure to vindicate himself/herself, to find the employee guilty and thereby, to terminate his/her employment. Such termination,

however, shall not prejudice the right of the employee to ques-tion the severance of relationship in the appropriate forum. The above procedure shall likewise be observed by the employer/agency in case the employment is terminated due to any of the just causes. 9.5. Report of dismissal, termination or retirement. - The security service contractor shall submit a monthly report of all dismissals or termination, including retirement, effected during the month to the DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over its main or branch office using the prescribed form and indicating all information as required by DOLE for policy and statistical purposes. Sec. 10. Right to self-organization and collective bargaining. The security guards and other personnel employed by the security service contractor shall have the right to form, join or assist in the formation of a labor organization of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities which are not contrary to law including the right to strike. Sec. 11. Penal provision. - Violation of any of the provisions of this Guidelines which are declared unlawful or punishable by law shall be punished accordingly. Sec. 12. Effect on existing issuances and agreements. This issuance shall serve as a guide for the DOLE and its agencies in the administration and enforcement of applicable labor and social legislations and their implementing regulations. Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize diminution or reduction of benefits being enjoyed by the security guards and similar personnel at the time of issuance hereof. This Guidelines supersedes Department Order No. 40 s. 1994 and other existing orders which are inconsistent hereto and shall take effect immediately.

Synthesis of the Study Research

A.) The government cost of employing private security guards in the government

offices is mandatory for the protection of lives and properties. Local government offices is hiring private security agencies in the different establishments of the government offices, for the reason that: Private Security Guards can guard 24/7, day and night, shift and work with local police and local enforcement to make sure that everything or everyone is safe. In the event also of emergency, a private security guard will do an immediate response. B.)

The salary cost of private security guards in the five selected municipalities is less than the minimum wages were received. At present, there was a memorandum circular NR I, Series of 2001 passed and approved by the legislative body regarding the basic salary of every private security guard under the existing laws of the labor code of the Philippines. The monthly salary rate of each guard is P14, 000.00 (fourteen thousand pesos) effective February 4, 2002. Almost all of the private security agencies on the five selected municipalities in Metro Manila did not comply on the said minimum wage salary existing under the labor code of the Philippines. To ensure the standard living of every family especially private security guards. The SAGSD and PADPAO should be and must be monitoring all agencies to ensure that they are complying with the minimum wage salary of their private security guards. They must also issue a memorandum circular to every private security agency operators regarding the policy of strictly implementing minimum wage salary including allowable benefits to every private security guard. To adhere strictly with the provision of Section 1, paragraph C and F of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act. No. 5487, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1919, which among others, authorize the Chief of the Philippine National police to cancel the license of any security agency for their violation, as in the following cases: (C) When a security agency has been found to engage in cut-throat competition by under cutting its contract rate for a price lower than the standard of minimum rates for security services adopted by PADPAO, Inc. with the concurrence of the Chief of the Philippine National Police. (F) When a security agency or company security force has been found to be violating the minimum wage rates that should be lawfully granted to their private security / company guards. This memorandum circular shall be binding upon all private security and detective agencies existing presently and those to be licensed hereafter in accordance with law.

Conceptual Framework:

The conceptual framework of government cost of employing private security guards in the government offices can be: the importance of private security guards in the government offices, the salary cost of private security guards given by the agency, the contract rate of government offices to the private security agency and the legal contract of private security guards based on the merit of RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law) under the law of labor code of the Philippines.

Paradigm

Inputs

Process

Importance of Private Five selected Security Guards posted in municipalities in government offices Manila Professional Private Security Guards and Private Security Agency Salary cost of Private Security Guards given by the Agencies Construct rate of Private

Outputs

local Ensure the protection of the Metro lives of employees, clients and properties of the government. RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law) Ensure the standard living of families. Minimum wage of salaries required, allowable allowances, benefits and security of tenure.

Security Guards based on the Merit of RA 5487 under existing labor code of the Philippines

Justification of the Study

CHAPTER III Methodology Research Method

The descriptive method of survey research will be used in this study. The descriptive survey method research is a fact finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation of the findings. It describes with emphasis what actually exist such as current conditions, practices, situations or any phenomena.

Since the present investigation is concerned, the descriptive method survey of research will be the most appropriate method to use in the topic, “The Government Cost of Employment of Private Security Guards”.

Respondents of the Study:

A.) Atty. Joaquin Trinidad is the General Manager and the owner of the Private

Security Agency serving in the city hall of Valenzuela City. Trinsata Private Security Agency is found at the Sampaloc, Manila. Based on the information I have gathered from him, there are 24 private security guards posted in the city hall of Valenzuela and for 8 months they are serving in the said municipality. According to him, the Agency was entered in the municipality by winning the “bid”. According to him also, private security guards posted in Valenzuela City Hall is important for the protection of the lives and property as well as protection of present Chief Local Executive office, including employees of the City Hall. B.) Mr. Leonardo C. Castro is the General Manager as well as the owner of Ex-

bataan Security Agency posted and serving in the City Hall of Caloocan located somewhere in located. Based on the information I have gathered, there are 32 private security guards designated in the city hall of Caloocan. According to him, the agency is almost 4 years serving in the city hall of Caloocan. The Ex-bataan Security Agency was entered in the municipality by winning the “bid”. Mr. Leonardo C. Castro said that private security guards posted in the city hall is very much important not only for the chief local executives and city hall employees but also for the clients of the said municipality.

Sampling Technique

Number of Private municipalities/city halls.

Security

Guards Number

1.) Caloocan City Hall

32

2.) Valenzuela City Hall

24

3.) Quezon City Hall

45

4.) Pasay City Hall

28

5.) Makati City Hall

40

designated

in

the

five

selected

20%

Total: 169

As far as the government employment of private security guards is concerned, 169 is the total population of the private security guards designated in the five selected

municipalities in Metro Manila government offices and is the sample which is representative.

Development and Validation of Research

The method of collecting data will be the survey method. This is concerned with looking into the commonality of some elements. Since the present research is about the government cost of Employment of Private Security Guards in the five selected government offices in Metro Manila. The normative method of survey research will be the most appropriate method to use in gathering data. The instrument to be used to collect data and informations will be the questionnaires as well as an interview for the selected respondents specifically the private security guards and the owner of the private security agencies including the Administration staff of the city halls. The researcher will be able to see and observe that the data and informations gathered from the selected respondents are true and correct.

Procedure

Statistical Treatment of Data

A.) What is / are the profiles of every private security agency?

Weight No. 5

-

Very High Profile

4

-

High Profile

3

-

Low Profile

2

-

Very Low Profile

1

-

Poor Profile

B.) How much is the salary of every private security guard in the government offices? Weight No. 5

-

Very High

4

-

High

3

-

Low

2

-

Very Low

1

-

Poor

C.) How much is the contract of every private security guard given by the local government offices? Weight No. 3

-

Above the minimum wage

2

-

Minimum wage

1

-

Less than the minimum wage