TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:36 am

Jago668 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:26 am

chasfm11 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:14 am

Jago668 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:11 am

chasfm11 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:54 am I wonder if the armed employees OC. There would seem to be a problem with this in Texas, given the tight grip that the security industry has on any non-LEO security. I also wonder how they are handling the liability issue.

Well in the article it said they were looking for people with law enforcement experience.

Right, but that doesn't deal with either the liability or the "license" matters.

Just went and looked, and you're right have to be 32+ hours a week peace officer to be exempt from needing a license. I was mistakenly thinking retired could as well.

There may be a security company that would offer some kind of an arrangement with QT or others to provide training and licensing as private security. But I'm guessing that if you can pass the qualifications for that, you can find a better paying job than QT, though I have no personal knowledge about the pay scales involved. There are a lot of non-armed private security that appear to be in the same type of pay range as you might find at QT. That said, the advertised pay scales at Buc-ees look pretty decent. I think the armed component changes the game.

Abraham wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:37 pm ELB,

I'm resistant to new/old corporate speak.

I recall when 'interpersonal relationship' came out and it made me gag.

Changing the word 'Personnel' to 'human resources' also made me gag.

Or now rather a dated term -'win-win' gag...

And my list goes on, but I'm sure you get my curmudgeonly point.

While I'm pro-corporations their stodgy, ludicrous made up speak isn't and never was for me, even when young.

Or, perhaps I've alway been a curmudgeon - which is probably the case.

Now, I've got to do a bit of 'networking'...

Abraham wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:37 pm ELB,

I'm resistant to new/old corporate speak.

I recall when 'interpersonal relationship' came out and it made me gag.

Changing the word 'Personnel' to 'human resources' also made me gag.

Or now rather a dated term -'win-win' gag...

And my list goes on, but I'm sure you get my curmudgeonly point.

While I'm pro-corporations their stodgy, ludicrous made up speak isn't and never was for me, even when young.

Or, perhaps I've alway been a curmudgeon - which is probably the case.

Now, I've got to do a bit of 'networking'...

G26ster wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:26 pm

Abraham wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:37 pm ELB,

I'm resistant to new/old corporate speak.

I recall when 'interpersonal relationship' came out and it made me gag.

Changing the word 'Personnel' to 'human resources' also made me gag.

Or now rather a dated term -'win-win' gag...

And my list goes on, but I'm sure you get my curmudgeonly point.

While I'm pro-corporations their stodgy, ludicrous made up speak isn't and never was for me, even when young.

Or, perhaps I've alway been a curmudgeon - which is probably the case.

Now, I've got to do a bit of 'networking'...

Abraham. I'm surprised by your inability to "think outside the box." Perhaps if you would examine your "core competency," you'd note that a better "ROI" is attainable. Participating in "group think" allows one to "give 110%" and "take it to the next level." By doing this, "at the end of the day" you will be able to "build a consensus" by employing "best practices" and grab "the low hanging fruit." This is "mission critical" for any person(s) that is "results driven." By doing so, you will be a "thought leader" and will be able to understand the "paradigm shifts" and be less "risk adverse." Good luck.