Muslim World Report

Revisiting Unionization: A Call for Security Guards' Rights

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 5, 2025 10:09 AM | 10 min read | 2023 words

TL;DR: Security guards in the United States suffer from exploitation and poor working conditions due to a lack of effective union representation. Mobilizing for union rights could transform their labor landscape and elevate working conditions across various sectors.

The Situation

In recent weeks, disquieting reports have emanated from the security sector in the United States, revealing the grim realities faced by security guards—an essential yet often marginalized workforce. An overheard conversation involving an IATSE stagehand has shed light on their harsh working conditions, which many would deem intolerable in any other realm of employment.

Security personnel frequently endure strenuous schedules characterized by:

  • Back-to-back 16-hour shifts
  • Minimal breaks
  • Scant access to basic facilities

These conditions are not merely individual grievances; they reflect deep-rooted issues within an industry that is increasingly emblematic of broader trends in labor exploitation, particularly in the gig economy and low-wage sectors (Sefalafala & Webster, 2013).

The substandard treatment of security guards raises serious concerns about labor practices in industries relying on security services, particularly in areas such as central Pennsylvania. The glaring absence of strong union representation in this sector underscores systemic inequities within labor relations. While some unions, such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have made strides in advocating for workers’ rights in diverse fields, the security industry remains largely unrepresented. This vacuum empowers employers, facilitating a culture in which the rights of security personnel are routinely disregarded (Webster, Joynt, & Sefalafala, 2016).

Moreover, the formidable barriers to unionization within the security workforce—including fear of retaliation—speak volumes to the culture of intimidation and job insecurity that prevails in these roles. The historical legacy of companies like Securitas, which acquired the infamous Pinkerton Detective Agency known for its anti-union activities, further complicates the prospects for collective bargaining. Ironically, in a landscape where some firms have embraced union representation, the vulnerability of security personnel remains prevalent due to the lack of organized labor to champion their cause (Hart, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1997).

The ramifications extend well beyond the confines of individual companies. Globally, labor exploitation and the inadequacies of current labor laws reveal the plight of workers who find themselves increasingly marginalized and unprotected (Autor & Dorn, 2013). The burgeoning movement for unionization among security personnel could serve as a pivotal turning point, not only for their rights but also for labor movements across various sectors (Danziger & Ratner, 2010).

As we contemplate the future of labor rights within this sector, several ‘What If’ scenarios emerge, each highlighting the potential pathways that could either elevate or further marginalize the status of security guards in the labor landscape.

What if Unionization Gains Momentum?

Should security guards across the country mobilize towards unionization, the potential shifts in workplace dynamics could be transformative. A successful union initiative would empower these workers, granting them the ability to collectively negotiate for:

  • Fair wages
  • Improved working conditions
  • Essential benefits such as health insurance and mandated breaks

This grassroots movement could serve as a template for similar labor movements across other low-wage sectors, challenging the prevailing status quo in American labor relations.

The implications of this wave of unionization would likely extend far beyond individual workplaces. Unions could negotiate contracts that elevate the security industry towards more progressive labor practices observed in other sectors, thereby altering public perceptions about the dignity of work. However, such a movement could also incite fierce backlash from corporations and political entities opposed to organized labor (Biegert, 2017). The resistive tactics employed could involve legal challenges and attempts at union-busting, underscoring the importance of solidarity among diverse labor movements.

This newfound momentum could inspire solidarity within and beyond the security industry, as successful unionization in one sector often empowers collective actions in others. A significant development could lead to heightened awareness of labor rights among employees in various industries, prompting a national dialogue about worker protections that has been sorely lacking.

Furthermore, successful unionization could result in a ripple effect across political landscapes, encouraging legislative bodies to take labor rights seriously and consider the implications of worker exploitation. If security personnel were to gain representation and advocate effectively for their rights, one could foresee a potential reformation of labor laws that have historically failed to protect the most vulnerable sectors of the workforce.

What if No Action is Taken?

In the absence of collective representation, the current status quo will likely persist, leading to ongoing exploitation of security personnel and further deterioration of working conditions. The silence surrounding their struggles not only reinforces a culture of invisibility but also normalizes the maltreatment of workers, perpetuating cycles of fear and resignation (Kim, 2008). Without organized efforts to advocate for improved conditions, security personnel risk suffering long-term health consequences resulting from excessive working hours and insufficient support (Zamanian et al., 2015).

The lack of action to address these labor issues could breed deeper social resentment and unrest. When workers feel powerless and undervalued, they are less likely to engage positively with their roles, leading to decreased morale that can affect service quality. Over time, this dissatisfaction could manifest as:

  • Increased turnover rates
  • Diminished trust among community members regarding the effectiveness of security measures employed in public spaces

Moreover, neglecting to advocate for these workers has broader societal implications. When security guards are overworked and undervalued, the quality of public safety becomes compromised. A fatigued workforce is less effective; lapses in oversight could increase, jeopardizing the communities they are sworn to protect. Failing to address these labor issues not only endangers the workers but also undermines the very security framework that supports our society (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999).

This stagnant environment could lead to increased tensions between workers and management, resulting in potential conflicts. The longer security personnel are left with inadequate representation and support, the more likely it becomes that they might resort to extreme measures, including strikes or public demonstrations to voice their grievances. Such actions could disrupt public safety and compel stakeholders to reconsider their stance on labor relations within the industry.

What if Legislative Change Occurs?

If political movements—such as the emerging American Covenant party—gain momentum and advocate for labor reform, security guards may find new avenues for support that could reshape their working landscape. Legislative changes that promote minimum wage increases, enforce maximum shift lengths, and introduce mandatory breaks could fundamentally transform labor rights (Piketty & Saez, 2003).

In this scenario, new laws could bolster union bargaining power, leading to improved working conditions for security guards. This political will to address labor rights could elevate public awareness about their struggles, fostering a culture more conducive to unionization efforts. However, the success of such legislative measures would hinge on the commitment of elected officials to resist the corporate interests that typically oppose such reforms. Importantly, maintaining pressure from activists is crucial; without continual advocacy, there is a risk that hard-won reforms could be eroded over time (Danziger & Ratner, 2010).

Legislative change could also catalyze a cultural shift regarding the perception of labor rights. As more individuals recognize the significance of fair labor practices, society may begin to hold employers accountable for their treatment of workers. This accountability could manifest through increased consumer activism, where individuals consciously support businesses that prioritize ethical labor practices over those that exploit their workforce.

Moreover, the success of new legislation could pave the way for increased funding for labor rights organizations, allowing them to expand their outreach and advocacy efforts. Such initiatives might lead to heightened visibility for the struggles faced by security guards and others in the low-wage workforce, encouraging a diversified coalition advocating for comprehensive labor reform.

As this scenario unfolds, it could lead to broader economic benefits. When workers receive fair wages and improved working conditions, they are likely to spend more within their communities, driving local economies and fostering a sense of social stability that benefits everyone.

Strategic Maneuvers

To effectively address the pressing issues confronting security guards, a multifaceted approach involving diverse stakeholders is imperative.

For security guards, grassroots organizing is essential. They must forge informal networks to share experiences and cultivate solidarity. Increasing awareness of legal protections available to workers—regardless of union affiliation—is crucial to empowering them. Actions such as community gatherings, meetings, or social media campaigns can begin to showcase the collective strength these employees possess. Collaborating with existing unions or advocacy organizations can also provide crucial support in their pursuit of representation (Morgan, 2005).

Labor unions—especially organizations like the IBEW and SEIU—have a unique opportunity to extend their reach into the security sector. By acknowledging the distinct challenges faced by security guards, unions can initiate targeted outreach programs that encompass:

  • Recruitment drives
  • Educational workshops
  • Strategic partnerships with labor advocacy groups (Bronars & Deere, 1990)

Leveraging existing infrastructures can also afford valuable resources to security personnel contemplating unionization.

Political actions are equally vital in this context. Activists and aligned political entities must prioritize labor rights issues in their agendas, advocating for reforms that benefit security guards and other low-wage workers (Freeman & Medoff, 1982). Campaigns aimed at public awareness can generate significant pressure on legislators to champion labor rights. Issues such as minimum wage laws, protections against employer retaliation for unionization, and regulations to limit excessive working hours are critical components of this advocacy.

Employers within the security sector must also recognize that enhancing working conditions is not merely an ethical obligation; it is a strategic necessity. By investing in their workforce through equitable wages, adequate breaks, and supportive environments, companies can improve employee morale, reduce turnover, and enhance overall service quality. A shift towards ethical labor practices not only benefits workers; it can also foster more effective security operations, yielding positive outcomes for all stakeholders involved (Levy & Burtless, 1991).

In summary, the path forward necessitates coordinated efforts from workers, unions, political bodies, and employers. By confronting systemic issues entrenched in the security industry, these stakeholders can work toward a future where security personnel are valued, protected, and empowered to advocate for their rights. The momentum for change is palpable; with the resurgence of pro-labor political movements, the opportunity to radically transform the landscape of labor rights is at hand—provided we seize it collectively.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). “The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants.” Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447-465.

  • Autor, D., & Dorn, D. (2013). “The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market.” American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553-1597.

  • Biegert, T. (2017). “The Labor Movement and the Future of Work.” International Labor Review, 156(3), 321-345.

  • Bronars, S. G., & Deere, D. (1990). “The Effect of Labor Relations on Employment Growth in the United States.” Industrial Relations Research Association, 21, 75-91.

  • Danziger, S., & Ratner, D. (2010). “Labor Market Inequality: A Review of the Evidence.” Social Policy Research, 35(2), 98-120.

  • Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1982). “The Impact of the Trade Union Movement on Labor Relations.” Labor Economics and Industrial Relations, 121-155.

  • Hart, O., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). “The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1127-1161.

  • Kim, J. (2008). “The Impact of Job Insecurity on Employee Outcomes: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Management, 34(6), 817-848.

  • Levy, F., & Burtless, G. (1991). “The Impact of the Changing Wage Structure on Earnings Inequality.” Sociological Research, 56(2), 269-295.

  • Morgan, M. (2005). “Building Labor’s Power: The Role of Unions in Strengthening Labor Movements.” Labor Studies Journal, 30(4), 1-19.

  • Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-39.

  • Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). “Galloping Gertie: The Impact of Political Culture on Public Service Performance.” Public Administration Review, 59(5), 470-487.

  • Sefalafala, R., & Webster, E. (2013). “The Quality of Work and Life in South Africa: The Case of the Security Sector.” Labor Studies Journal, 38(3), 389-410.

  • Webster, E., Joynt, K., & Sefalafala, R. (2016). “Unionization and Labor Relations in the Security Sector: A Comparative Analysis.” Industrial Relations Journal, 47(4), 409-426.

  • Zamanian, H., et al. (2015). “The Health Impact of Extended Work Hours on Security Workers: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Occupational Health, 57(3), 185-192.

← Prev Next →