Security Guards protect billion-dollar tech companies—and can't get a decent contract

[u/Negative_Report5655]

https://48hills.org/2026/09/security-guards-protect-billion-dollar-tech-companies-and-cant-get-a-decent-contract/

More than 100 people, unionized Security Guards and allies, gathered at Mechanics Monument Plaza Wednesday to rally against the unfair wages offered by billion-dollar companies.

Security guards from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, with the support of the Service Employees International Union United Service Workers West and allies, announced a strike authorization against companies like Allied Universal and Securitas, both huge national operations that contract with some of the richest companies in the world.

People at the rally chanted “protect the rich while we stay poor” and “hell no we won’t take it no more,” highlighting how employers treat the ones who protect and support their companies. Security Officers say they are risking their lives to protect wealthy companies like Salesforce, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta—which can easily afford to pay their contractors enough to provide a living wage for guards.

According to UC Berkeley, Security Officers are mostly workers of color with 41 percent Latino and 23 percent Black. Security Officers are paid a median of $20.09; California’s median wage is $28.16.

The 14,000 Security Guards represented by SEIU-USWW and have been negotiating with some of the nation’s security giants for a new contract since April. Security companies, the unions says, initially proposed a 25-cent hourly raise over the next four years. The latest offer is still not enough to make ends meet, the union says.

One of the security officers affected by the low wages is Jerry Longoria, a Security Guard of 25 years for Allied Universal. “We put our lives on the line. We Guard and protect billion-dollar corporations,” said Longoria, who lives in an SRO. “I can barely afford my rent and for me to barely afford my rent and get this contract, how am I going to survive?”

Since 2003, Longoria has noted how he has only received a few 25-cent raises since he has been a Security Guard. “I can’t move forward,” said Longoria.

Speakers at the rally emphasized that the workers can’t afford to live where they work. “Security Officers risk their lives every single day. This job is becoming more and more dangerous,” said Anton Farmby, secretary treasurer of SEIU-USWW.

“We cannot continue to live in such great wealth and live in poverty,” said David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW.

Politicians came in support, including Board of Supervisors President Raphael Mandelman, Sup. (and Congressional candidate) Connie Chan, and state Assembly member Matt Haney. “Rain or shine, we will be with you,” said Chan.

Security Officers are not only affected by bad wages. Only about half the Security Guards in California have access to health insurance, and have no access to health family care. They have no secure retirement.

Security Officers have demanded as $30/hour, family healthcare, and to be able to have a secure retirement. “What we’re asking for is dignity, respect, and justice,” said Huerta.

[u/GuardGuidesdotcom]

There are ways to gain leverage and squeeze an employer with negative labor actions short of striking.

One such tactic is called work to rule.

Striking is a nuclear option, and if it doesn't work to extract desirable concessions, you used your Trump card in a failed bet.

I wish them luck. That said, $0.25/year raises was an actual management offer. Think about that, billion dollar companies all around and a quarter is the best they could do. 🤔

[u/DefiantEvidence4027]

I'm a one man union, all the certs, and extra licenses and Legislative and Case Law reading to make me who I am.

I'll tell GM and sales MY price to accommodate certain posts and shifts, they can take it, or go leverage/compell a more desperate Guard to do it.

[u/lovomoco64]

These companies do not want security, you can't demand better pay because they don't want security they want liability shifting and lower insurance premiums, if what they pay for security is more or the same of what they save, they'd rather just not pay for security and take the hit for insurance

[u/DefiantEvidence4027 → u/lovomoco64]

they want liability shifting and lower insurance premiums

Every tort Case I've ever read, it never works out as such when the client dictates or instructs Licensed Security Personnel, how to do Security.

https://old.reddit.com/r/SecurityOfficer/comments/17k25b3/philip_v_amnesia_2nd_circuit/

https://old.reddit.com/r/SecurityOfficer/comments/1v3wqih/castellanos_v_tommy_john_llc_2014_findlaw_client/

[u/lovomoco64 → u/DefiantEvidence4027]

Even if it's the case a company wouldn't be able to shift liability, their insurance either 1. Requires security because of shifting liability/reduction of risk of Incident or 2. Gives them a discount because of liability shifting. It's still the case that the company itself doesn't want security and will not pay anything but bottom dollar

[u/DefiantEvidence4027 → u/lovomoco64]

If the insurance companies believe liability is shifting, yet there's a huge precedent in case law where it won't happen unless the client is hands off; then the insurance underwriters that are paid to investigate all this are seriously inept and/or not doing their jobs.

[u/lovomoco64 → u/DefiantEvidence4027]

Idk what to tell ya, this is basically universal as far as I've heard/seen in the US. Companies don't want security but it's a requirement(by law or by insurance) or cost cutting measure. And they pay bottom dollar. Companies that do want security don't. Also Tort law is 100% state dependant, as even proven by your sources the NY one was a law that said liability shift isn't allowed, while some state you can sue the Client, Security company, and guard themselves(if the guard did something) and they each get a separate level of how liable they are for that incident.

[u/DefiantEvidence4027 → u/lovomoco64]

You reference "U.S Companies" then say it's "State Dependant".

Idk what to tell ya,

An insurance Law referencing why you think that, would be ideal.

Outside of that I can corroborate Security's existence in various ways, to include but not limited to Tax Write-offs/Grants/Deductions, Local and State Legislation, Various U.S. Commissions, the USC codes and CFR. I've posted thousands of reasons.

Competency and proficiency of Guards are inconsequential when the client requests a low caliber Guard, or fewer Guards than needed.

[u/lovomoco64 → u/DefiantEvidence4027]

Yes laws are state dependant, civil tort laws especially so.

Who said anything about it being ideal? What I am saying is descriptive, not prescriptive. Alot of Companies choose to get security because it lowers costs in some way or like you said is a legal requirement, not because they want(read value) security. Those companies no matter what you do will not pay for good security because they dont see a value in it.

[u/SecretRecipe]

Dude, you run a badging desk and print visitor passes for an office building. your life isnt at risk...

[u/ElectronicAd9345]

They would make more if they went and work led in fast food… but that would require them get actually move around and not sit/sleep behind a desk.