Old Dog said:
No, no, and NO. For corporations owning private police forces, the bottom line is the profit margin. As in every other industry then, one hires the least-expensive employees one can find ... Corners will be cut in order to increase the profit margin ... at what -- and whose -- expense?
What's wrong with hiring the cheapest employees that meet qualifications? Why do so many businesses offer training subsidies? Why do people make $100k/year? Because they're worth it.
I suppose you must be scared of your house, given that it was probably built using dozens of contractors, all 'cutting corners'. There's a difference between doing something in the cheapest effective way(allowed), and doing substandard work(not allowed).
As with any time you hire a contractor to fulfill a function, you have to specify what you want. Sure, a security company can mess stuff up, not do their job, just like any other contractor.
But just like any other contractor, and unlike most government employees, you can fire them, sue them, etc. One of the problems we've seen with public police forces is that they don't really
care if they get sued. The government just raises taxes on the people to make up the fine. If a private police company gets sued, well, that's coming out of their bottom line. If it's too bad, they'll go broke and out of business.
Sure, I can try hiring minimum wage employees. Problem is that I'll be getting dregs and short-termers. Who, in the course of things, are more likely to get me(the owner of the company) fired, sued, fined, etc. If I spend 16 hours training a guy who leaves in three months, I'm out more than if I spend two weeks on a guy who sticks around for 3 years.
The whole idea is that allowing a company a profit margin ends up being cheaper because of increased efficiency versus entrenched butt covering.
A good contracting police company's number one objective is to keep the people who hired it happy. It doesn't even need to be in the contract, because if something unpleasant happens that wasn't in the contract, odds are that it'll be in the contract next time round, and if the people aren't happy with you even if the terms of the contract were fulfilled, that you won't be asked to bid on the contract again. It might not be extended, etc.
Think of it like this:
Officer 1 is a public employee prick. People file complaints against him all the time. Does the police department care? Not really.
Officer 2 is a private employee prick. People file complaints against him all the time. Does the contracting company care? Probably: He's reflecting badly on the company, and there's that review board looking at the complaints, a fine is a possibility, and the contract extension board is about to meet... Oh, Officer 2, you're fired.
Presently, most of the people who enter the law enforcement profession do so out of idealism and a sense of service -- certainly, not for the huge wages ... Let's keep it that way -- at least we know we'll get some folks who go into the occupation for the right reasons.
And how many power hungry people do we get in there? How many unions and government hiring rules let them stay in?
90% of doctors and such are private employees. Heck, we have a strong tradition of private schools, and they get teachers. Sense of service, idealism doesn't mean that it has to be a public job.
:banghead: 
