Arming Bank Tellers

[ky_man]

Why not use cages with bullet proof material, and electronic locks at each teller? The customer must enter the locking cage in order to reach the transaction drawer, and there is no way to shoot a gun at the teller or anyone else while inside the cage.

Because one of the primary jobs of a teller is to sell new services and be friendly. This is hard to do if you are behind glass.

I'll give you a link to some possible solutions to bank security:

http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857200282&nh=0

Keep all cash transactions segregated from the rest of the branch, and behind glass. Thus, walking into the lobby demanding money would get you nothing.

Or, perhaps this is the way banks USED to think, then some people got killed because the robbers were angry at getting nothing, and banks universally changed their policies to allow easier access to money?

I dunno. Tellers have a crap job, although here they are paid a little better than has been suggested. The average CSR makes between $10-12 an hour, managers make >$40K. Perhaps that's where all the overdraft fees are going?

I think we can all unanimously agree that banks need more security for their workers. They at least owe them a little peace of mind.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Most banks work with a contract security company, and pay only minimum wages;

I think the "minimum wages" is the real issue. When a business - bank or not - issues weapons to employees, the business and its ensurers are going to require a fair amount of training, and a more extensive background check. That means that you aren't going the be able to hire the guy who got fired for burning the fries at McDonald's last week, pay him minimum wage, and hand him a badge and a gun.

My guess is that the banks have done the math - it's cheaper to lose some money to a bank robbery than it is to implement real security.

I think some place have started "passive security" - bulletproof plexiglas shields, etc. Those evidently work pretty well at discouraging robberies. But they are still more expensive than suffering the occasional robbery.

Mike

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

no teller is going to risk their life defending someone else's money when getting paid $11 per hour.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I think we can all unanimously agree that banks need more security for their workers. They at least owe them a little peace of mind.

"Peace of mind?" I am guessing you don't work in corporate America.

If we can save $10,000 a year in costs, and that means a teller gets shot occasionally, that's what Workman's Comp is for. If they die, that's what life insurance is for - unless enough of them die that the insurance rates go up, who the hell cares if a few employees here and there get killed.

If it costs $50,000 to install the shields, and the cost to the bank of a dead teller is $10,000 installing the shields is money losing proposition.

I wish I was joking.

Mike

Evil

 

[txgho1911]

Goes back to the open vs concealed argument. If everyone who has the ability and is willing would open carry in the bank the robbers will go somewhere else.
We have already read about the law-suite fest and implied incompetence of bank CSRs.

 

[bsf]

I work at a bank and this is why we have about 4 armed police officers on premises and visible in the lobby at all times. It is a great deterrent. The bank has never been robbed (thank God) and hopefully never will. The crooks look for soft targets. When they see police officers hanging around, I'm sure it quickly changes their mind about robbing our bank.

Please elaborate. Are these officers on- or off-duty? Is this a huge bank? I do not understand. Where I live, there is not a cop in all schools during all school hours; not even close. Oh boy, must refrain from ranting on inaction in securing our schools. Arrrgh.

 

[Linkinlog]

Please elaborate. Are these officers on- or off-duty? Is this a huge bank? I do not understand.

We have off-duty Sheriffs that guard the bank. They wear their uniform and all carry guns. They make their presence known (hang out in the lobby and behind the tellers) and I feel very safe, considering the bank is located in one of the farily bad parts of town. We are a decent sized bank but are not part of a national chain. We have two locations, but the other one is a "production office" for commercial loans and such.

Instead of hiring rent-a-cops, the bank pays good money to have REAL protection. It is a nice perk of working for this bank. Of course, I'm not a teller... I mean Customer Service Representative... so I feel a little safer working on a different floor behind a locked door. Most banks are too worried about the bottom line to hire off-duty police.

 

[ky_man]

You've got one off-duty cop there, with a 15-round magazine in his Glock and you feel safe? I hope to God you never get robbed, because lead will fly.

I bet when you do get robbed it will be 2+ people doing the robbing. What will your lone gunman do then?

Now, if the cash were somehow segregated from the main banking area, with NO way for the internal teller's safety to be compromised, THEN I'd feel safe being THAT teller.

This is why I believe that banks went to a more open format. Let the robbers have what they came for, open everything, no "I don't have the key for that" responses, etc.

The bank's assumption is that robbers won't hurt you if you give them what they want, 9 times out of 10.

Tellers really are expendable. I want desperately for my friends to find a new line of work, but they can't. Mortgages, career advancement, kids, etc. are standing in the way. It's sad when you're tied to your job.

 

[romma]

no teller is going to risk their life defending someone else's money when getting paid $11 per hour.

They already are just working there IMO...

 

[Linkinlog]

You've got one off-duty cop there, with a 15-round magazine in his Glock and you feel safe? I hope to God you never get robbed, because lead will fly.

I bet when you do get robbed it will be 2+ people doing the robbing. What will your lone gunman do then?

We typically have at least 3, sometimes 4 trained police officers at the bank. I feel completely safe.

Also, I don't work in the lobby. I work upstairs behind a code-locked door. I could be down the back stairs and out the back door in 30 seconds or less. All of the doors on all of the floors are code-locked.

I think you are being a little too paranoid.

 

[txgho1911]

I know my way around Houston. Care to give a description of the area? Alemda and 227?

 

[Big Calhoun]

I never understood why more banks didn't use bullet-proof partitions. I actually do understand...the need for customer service. But as I see it, I visit a teller (rarely) to complete a transaction. I expect customer service from the banker in regards to talking over a loan or opening a new account. I'm a big supporter of electronic banking. Since opening my account, I've only stepped inside the bank one other time to open another account. Everything else, including deposits, gets done via ATMs or the Internet.

Having worked with a former bank teller, I'd say arming them would be bad juju. Some of them don't seem to happy in their jobs and seem to carry a lot of pent up stress.

 

[Linkinlog]

I know my way around Houston. Care to give a description of the area? Alemda and 227?

Not really and no not that area. It's not a horrible area but definitely not a good part.

Having worked with a former bank teller, I'd say arming them would be bad juju. Some of them don't seem to happy in their jobs and seem to carry a lot of pent up stress.

I agree. I don't think that arming the tellers is the answer.

I think the answer is having off-duty police officers. A would-be robber is going to scope out the bank before robbing it. Do they choose the bank with cops hanging out in the lobby or the bank with no guards / guards with pepper spray? Even if they don't scope it out before hand, seeing a few armed officers in the lobby will change their mind pretty quick. They will end up going for a softer target down the road.

 

[ky_man]

Linklogin:

I think you are being a little too paranoid.

Since when is preventing a teller from getting a gun in their face "being a little too paranoid"?

- It has happened to 2 of my friends this year alone!

- We have had 2 tellers in Louisville shot as the robbers were fleeing, in total cold callousness, this year.

- We have had 3 bank robberies in Louisville in the last 2 months, all armed!

I'm glad YOU feel completely safe behind at least 4 armed guards. What about my friend Jennifer, who had a gun to her head for 4 full minutes? She had NO security, in a nice suburban branch. Tore her world apart, man. She still has scars, and so do I in a way.

I can't start a 'security revolution' by posting threads to thehighroad.org, but I can attempt to gather pro/con statements to help my friends not look like sheep at monthly management and security meetings. Eventually, they may be promoted on up to the top, who knows? As a branch manager, after finishing her MBA she has the opportunity to be promoted to middle management. Then, they will be better suited to argue policy for the entire company.

Here's are examples of "extra" security:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5970888-description.html
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/347.html

The idea behind defense in depth is to manage risk with diverse defensive strategies, so that if one layer of defense turns out to be inadequate, another layer of defense will hopefully prevent a full breach. This principle is well known, even beyond the security community; for example, it is a famous principle for programming language design: Defense in Depth: Have a series of defenses so that if an error isn't caught by one, it will probably be caught by another.2

Let's go back to our example of bank security. Why is the typical bank more secure than the typical convenience store? Because there are many redundant security measures protecting the bank, and the more measures there are, the more secure the place is.

Security cameras alone are a deterrent for some. But if people don't care about the cameras, then a security guard is there to physically defend the bank with a gun. Two security guards provide even more protection. But if both security guards get shot by masked bandits, then at least there's still a wall of bulletproof glass and electronically locked doors to protect the tellers from the robbers. Of course if the robbers happen to kick in the doors, or guess the code for the door, at least they can only get at the teller registers, since we have a vault protecting the really valuable stuff. Hopefully, the vault is protected by several locks, and cannot be opened without two individuals who are rarely at the bank at the same time. And as for the teller registers, they can be protected by having dye-emitting bills stored at the bottom, for distribution during a robbery.

Of course, having all these security measures does not ensure that our bank will never be successfully robbed. Bank robberies do happen, even at banks with this much security. Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious that the sum total of all these defenses results in a far more effective security system than any one defense alone would.

Here is "idiocracy"-style security in action:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003661713_safecatch11m.html

 

[Linkinlog]

Since when is preventing a teller from getting a gun in their face "being a little too paranoid"?

- It has happened to 2 of my friends this year alone!

- We have had 2 tellers in Louisville shot as the robbers were fleeing, in total cold callousness, this year.

- We have had 3 bank robberies in Louisville in the last 2 months, all armed!

I'm glad YOU feel completely safe behind at least 4 armed guards. What about my friend Jennifer, who had a gun to her head for 4 full minutes? She had NO security, in a nice suburban branch. Tore her world apart, man. She still has scars, and so do I in a way.

It sounds like she needs to find a better place to work. Obviously her security is something that she should take into consideration when choosing an employer. If they won't protect her or allow her to be protect herself, then she needs to decide if her life is worth the job. I'm not trying to downplay what she went through, but it seems this her situation at the moment. They chose her bank as a target because of the lack of security.

Did any of the robbed banks have armed security guards? I think this is the first step to preventing these types of attacks. Cameras are worthless. Armed robbers are typically bright enough to wear masks or some sort of covering.

 

[ky_man]

No, none of the suburban branches have security "staff" unless they have been robbed recently. They keep the security around for a few months and then withdraw it.

I just think it's moronic to NOT have an armed individual in a bank. I mean, my local grocery has off-duty cops on duty 24h a day. My local convenience store (not corporate-owned has open carry staff). I was in my local video store the other day and happened to peek behind the counter, saw a 12-gauge shotgun.

She DOES need a new job, but she cannot leave the banks right now. She is mortgages to the hilt and commuted 40 miles every day to work. She has not time to interview elsewhere, and the bank is going to partially pay for her MBA.

 

[Kentak]

In 2006, how many tellers were killed in over 7000 bank robberies?

A couple.

Please understand this: Banks do not want shootouts in their banks. They want the bank robber to get the money and leave.

Repeat: Banks want NO shootouts.

Repeat: Banks want NO shootouts.

They don't want the tellers to resist a robbery, they don't want the customers to resist a robbery.

Got it?

Don't like it? Don't work for a bank. Use only the drive through teller.

K

 

[2RCO]

Kentak I totally agree +1.
I have had my life threatened for turning down loans threats and robberies are part of banking it happens.