Posted on Sep 30, 2014
Do big security contract companies really only want prior SF, or Ranger?
4.08K
6
3
1
1
0
As a regular Infantry Squad leader willing to train, go to Security classes and courses companies offer, how would I stand out not being SF or Ranger? I am a year away from my degree in Homeland Security, but I don't mind deploying. I unfortunately would only want to do it for the pay primarily.
Posted in these groups: 
Government Contracts
Government Contracts
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
3
3
0
SSG Paugam, as a senior executive in a very large company whose primary line of business is security, I will tell you that being qualified as a Ranger or Special Forces (SEAL, etc.) is a discriminator, but is not all-important in most cases. It largely depends on the company and type security position they are hiring for. For example, if the company is hiring static security guards at a non-sensitive facility, it would be less important that if the company was hiring a para-military SWAT team member for a nuclear weapons facility or for a personal protection mission in a potentially hostile country.
I have been involved the hiring of thousands of service members for para-military security positions for national security sites and missions. While almost 100% of our hires were former military, whether they were Ranger, SF, SEAL, etc. was not a criteria for hire, as much as it was simply a discriminator. By that, I mean that if you and another individual were identical in every way (rank, MOS, assignments, etc.) except that the other guy was a Ranger and you were not, and I could only hire one, I would probably hire the Ranger, as it was just the one thing that differentiated the two of you. The vast majority of our hires are not Ranger/SF qualified, although we certainly also have many of them.
I have been involved the hiring of thousands of service members for para-military security positions for national security sites and missions. While almost 100% of our hires were former military, whether they were Ranger, SF, SEAL, etc. was not a criteria for hire, as much as it was simply a discriminator. By that, I mean that if you and another individual were identical in every way (rank, MOS, assignments, etc.) except that the other guy was a Ranger and you were not, and I could only hire one, I would probably hire the Ranger, as it was just the one thing that differentiated the two of you. The vast majority of our hires are not Ranger/SF qualified, although we certainly also have many of them.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir,
I appreciate the rapid response, and I value knowledgeable posts like this. I have asked this question so many times, and it was never clearly answered until now. Thank you.
I appreciate the rapid response, and I value knowledgeable posts like this. I have asked this question so many times, and it was never clearly answered until now. Thank you.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
While different companies have different ways of deciding which applicants to hire, most do so by establishing a ratings criteria that can hold up in court if sued for discrimination, which is all too prevalent in today's litigious society.
In my company, when I was at the contract general manager level (at a very large nuclear weapons facility that had in excess of 1,000 para-military security police officers, to include over 150 SWAT team members), we had in excess of 150 applicants for each position we hired (average salary of the security personnel was between $70,000 - $100,000, depending on how much overtime they worked). So, for a new-hire class of 45 personnel, it was not unusual to have over 5,000 applicants. To help cull through that very large applicant pool, we created a computer analysis system whereby we assigned points to a large number of factors divulged in the job application (which was much more detailed than a typical application). For example, we assigned point values for branch of service, MOS, special qualifications, weapons quals, PT badge, assignments/positions held, length of service, "recentness" of service, security clearance, and on and on. As an example, a former (or current) Army Infantry or Military Police soldier would score more points than an Air Force truck driver. Every branch was assigned a point value, as was every MOS within those branches.
That system allowed us to cull the applicant pool down to the 100 or so that we would interview. I will state that, since we hired primarily military personnel, a very large number of the applicant pool (those without recent military service) were not considered qualified and not actually put into the ranking system. We typically ranked anywhere from 500 to 1000 for the 45 or so positions we hired with each new class and, from that, interviewed about 100 or so.
Although we were routinely sued by individuals who did not make the "cut" for hiring, we never lost a case because we had a set criteria and followed it, without exception.
In my company, when I was at the contract general manager level (at a very large nuclear weapons facility that had in excess of 1,000 para-military security police officers, to include over 150 SWAT team members), we had in excess of 150 applicants for each position we hired (average salary of the security personnel was between $70,000 - $100,000, depending on how much overtime they worked). So, for a new-hire class of 45 personnel, it was not unusual to have over 5,000 applicants. To help cull through that very large applicant pool, we created a computer analysis system whereby we assigned points to a large number of factors divulged in the job application (which was much more detailed than a typical application). For example, we assigned point values for branch of service, MOS, special qualifications, weapons quals, PT badge, assignments/positions held, length of service, "recentness" of service, security clearance, and on and on. As an example, a former (or current) Army Infantry or Military Police soldier would score more points than an Air Force truck driver. Every branch was assigned a point value, as was every MOS within those branches.
That system allowed us to cull the applicant pool down to the 100 or so that we would interview. I will state that, since we hired primarily military personnel, a very large number of the applicant pool (those without recent military service) were not considered qualified and not actually put into the ranking system. We typically ranked anywhere from 500 to 1000 for the 45 or so positions we hired with each new class and, from that, interviewed about 100 or so.
Although we were routinely sued by individuals who did not make the "cut" for hiring, we never lost a case because we had a set criteria and followed it, without exception.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google