Talk:G4S Secure Solutions/Archives/2012

POV

"Wackenhut also specializes in providing security for employers experiencing difficulties with labor unions, including strike actions. Not surprisingly, Wackenhut has a poor reputation with labor unions as a result."

"Wackenhut was involved in the operation of private prisons during the 1980s, but abandoned the market due to low returns on investment, excessive government regulation, and negative publicity affecting its other more profitable operations."

What Wackenhut PR flack wrote this? -PG—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.4.66 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2004(UTC)

So write something more accurate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.185.170 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; much of the page read like a press release. I added new content and re-worded existing phrases to bring more in line with NPOV. I'll start a stub on Wackenhut himself too for completeness. — mvc 19:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like

Looks like someone vandalized the article and removed the 'Wackenhut and private prisons' section, please restore it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Boston Globe

According to the Boston Globe, Wackenhut has lost its security contract at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant as the Entergy Corporation reached agreement with the security officers' union, the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) to cancel the estimated $5 million a year contract and take the guards in-house. The move came after public and government criticism of Wackenhut’s performance.

An Entergy spokesman told the Boston Globe that dropping Wackenhut would deflect criticism of security preparations at the plant. "If Wackenhut no longer provided security at Pilgrim the conflict of interest charge could not be made." This statement appears to be the first on-the-record acknowledgement by a nuclear power plant owner that the Wackenhut-NEI arrangement constitutes the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The Pilgrim plant was the subject of a special investigation by Time magazine last summer which reported multiple security problems. Entergy cancelled Wackenhut’s contract at the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City in 2003 after an internal investigation uncovered numerous security problems. Wackenhut receives an estimated 12% of its total revenue from the nuclear power industry where it is the largest security contractor.

Entergy dropped Wackenhut at Pilgrim in the midst of a labor dispute with UGSOA. Pilgrim guards have been working for more than 6 months without a contract, and had unanimously authorized a strike vote as Wackenhut sought to remove a provision that guarantees that officers receive at least two days in a row off work each week. Security officers at Pilgrim worked “thousands of hours of overtime last year,” according to a UGSOA official who added, “Wackenhut is trying to trim the time-off allowed for guards who are already working more overtime than ever.” Pilgrim security officers expressed concern over Wackenhut’s plan to require workers taking bereavement leave to show proof that they actually attended a funeral. Excessive overtime has been linked to inadequate preparedness and performance of security forces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.8.4.24 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting article about Wackenhut at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304442_pf.html. It seems like it has some content that could be relevant to add, it's just hard to say exactly which parts would be worth including in the Wikipedia article. Zahnrad (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like

Looks like someone vandalized the article and removed the 'Wackenhut and private prisons' section, please restore it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged poor standards leads to contract terminations in 2008

2008 Washington Post article

Snippet:

" ... Video of Sleeping Guards Shakes Nuclear Industry - Sight of Guards Asleep Shakes Industry

By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 4, 2008; Page A01

Kerry Beal was taken aback when he discovered last March that many of his fellow security guards at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania were taking regular naps in what they called "the ready room."

When he spoke to supervisors at his company, Wackenhut Corp., they told Beal to be a team player. When he alerted the regional office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regulators let the matter drop after the plant's owner, Exelon, said it found no evidence of guards asleep on the job.

So Beal videotaped the sleeping guards. The tape, eventually given to WCBS, a CBS television affiliate in New York City, showed the armed workers snoozing against walls, slumped on tabletops or with eyes closed and heads bobbing.

The fallout of the broadcast is still being felt. Last month, Exelon, the country's largest provider of nuclear power, fired Wackenhut, which had guarded each of its 10 nuclear plants. The NRC is reviewing its own oversight procedures, having failed to heed Beal's warning. And Wackenhut says that the entire nuclear industry needs to rethink security if it hopes to meet the tougher standards the NRC has tried to impose since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

The most immediate impact has been felt at Wackenhut, which protected half of the nation's 62 commercial nuclear power plants. Exelon's decision to terminate Wackenhut's contract reduces the number of commercial sites protected by the company to 21.

"In the past, the standards were not our standards," said Craig Nesbit, vice president of communications at Exelon. "They were Wackenhut standards, and that's not what we want, and we're going to fix that." Exelon chief executive John W. Rowe added: "We had had some difficulties with them from time to time. We felt the incident with the guards was the last straw." ... "

This info needs to be added, yes? Cowicide (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE OK... it's now making national TV news too... you can watch it on YouTube HERE. Cowicide (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted; I added a Peach Bottom section to the article. Keep your eye on this and Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station. Someone (employees?) keeps claiming they are known for being well-run(!). Josephgrossberg (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible article bias and quality

While well sourced, the writing of the article does seem to have an agenda in mind, and lacks in writing standard, in a few places. I was wandering if anyone could address this and see about moving it to a more neutral point of view? Il take a look later in the week and re-write a couple of bits and pieces. Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieHughes (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that I must disagree with you. The article is not "well sourced". As a matter of fact, there is only one reference cited for the first 1000 words-plus—although many allegations require them. Because of this lack of proper sourcing, the entire article begins to take on the appearance of a slanted article written from a negative point of view. But this does not mean that Wikipedia is required to write a neutral article: if Wachenhut is a miserable company then Wachenhut must be documented accordingly. A primary problem with the article is that it is over-written—that is, there is too much excessive, wordy and boring detail which could be summarized from long endless paragraphs (such as the beginning and the section about Miami-Dade) into single sentences. The editors need to reread WP:MOS and then begin a major overhaul. Hag2 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Groom Lake, Nevada

According to the Area 51 article, Wackenhut runs perimeter security for the Groom Lake facility. Anyone see a reason not to mention this? WookMuff (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Forestry, sawmills ?

Isn't ( or wasn't ) Wackenhut a big forestry or sawmilling company ? Is that related to this one at all ?Eregli bob (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)