A Philadelphia City Council bill to establish training requirements for private security guards has sparked the latest City Hall showdown between organized labor and business leaders, with an industry group suggesting a powerful union may be using the legislative process to gain leverage in contract talks.
The bill, which is sponsored by Councilmember Isaiah Thomas and championed by Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, would require employers to pay for security guards to receive 40 hours of in-person training upon hiring and eight hours of training each subsequent year.
Under the bill, the training cannot be provided by the employer and must be administered by a nonprofit — such as a labor union.
» READ MORE: Some private security officers lack job training. In Philadelphia, a new bill could change that.
Council’s Commerce Committee advanced the legislation in a unanimous voice vote Wednesday after hearing heated testimony from security guards, Local 32BJ officials, and business interests. They adopted an amendment by Thomas that included changes based on stakeholders’ feedback, such as exempting guards from the training requirement if they already have state lethal weapons certifications.
But the fight may not be over. Thomas said he may offer further amendments once the bill reaches the Council floor.
“This is a bill that we are still in the process of baking,” Thomas said at the hearing.
Thomas said part of his motivation to pass the bill this year is to prepare the city for 2026, when Philadelphia will host major events that could present security threats such as the Semiquincentennial, FIFA World Cup games, and the MLB All–Star Game.
“I’ve been really trying to be thoughtful about preparing Philadelphia for 2026,” Thomas said. “This is just another step in the right direction.”
During the hearing, Andre Dozier, who said he’s been a security guard in the city for 20 years, said guards are not always prepared for dangerous circumstances they encounter on the job.
“This training will save many lives,” Dozier told the committee.
Dozier said he spent his own money to get CPR training, which he used once to revive a child who had turned blue.
“We’re the first line of defense, the ones who respond before the responders,” he said. “We can’t afford to be without this training because the responsibility falls on us.”
» READ MORE: In Pa., private security companies make their own rules. Some say they’re above the law.
Natalie Kidd, who chairs the Building Owners & Managers Association of Philadelphia, said the bill would drive up expenses for employers and limit their flexibility.
“At a time when the city’s downtown recovery is still fragile, this bill increases the cost of occupancy for tenants large and small,” Kidd said. “Commercial tenants who are the lifeblood of Center City’s economy will shoulder the cost through higher rent and security charges.”
Kidd said a typical 30-story office building with 14 security guards could see $40,000 in added costs in the first year under the new rules.
Thomas then interjected to note that Kidd’s estimated training costs — which work out to about $71 per hour per worker — far exceeds what security guards make, which he suggested was $16 per hour.
“I don’t think it’s fair to come before this legislative body and complain about how much something is going to cost when the people who are doing the work live in poverty,” Thomas said.
A question of leverage
Steve Amitay, executive director of the National Association of Security Companies, said the proposal would be substantially more onerous than regulations in other jurisdictions, especially the number of hours required and the prohibition on employers providing the training.
Amitay suggested the union, which represents building services workers, may have ulterior motivation for pushing the legislation this year: Local 32BJ’s recently expired collective bargaining agreement with private security companies working in Philadelphia.
The union, critics of the bill have speculated, could be using Council to advance a measure the companies oppose as a means of winning concessions from them.
“I’ve heard that they’re using this bill as leverage in the CBA, and I think it just doesn’t make sense,” Amitay said in an interview. “The additional cost of the training that will be passed through to the clients — it will lead to clients who do not have inelastic security budgets, to say, ‘You know what, maybe we don’t need those roving patrols.’”
Daisy Cruz, Local 32BJ’s district director, said the bill “has nothing to do about leverage at the bargaining table.” The union, she noted, represents only 3,000 of the estimated 14,000 security officers working in Philadelphia.
“We’ve been bargaining in good faith,” she said. “This is not only training about our security officers. This is about training the 14,000 security officers here in Philadelphia.”
Camille Duchaussee, Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s chief administrative officer, said the administration supports the intent of the bill but has concerns that still need to be addressed.
The administration, she said, prefers that employers be allowed to provide the training in-house, and called for the effective date of the legislation to be delayed from the start of 2026 to 2027, to give the city time to prepare for its implementation.
Pennsylvania does not have a licensing board for security guards, and local regulations are scattershot. Philadelphia has a poorly enforced rule requiring training for bouncers, but does not have an overarching standard for private security.
Thomas in the middle
The showdown between labor and business reflects the tension at the center of Thomas’ political profile.
A second-term Democratic lawmaker and Council’s majority whip, Thomas has strong ties to some unions, including Local 32BJ, and has been backed by progressive organizations, which applauded his 2021 law to prohibit Philadelphia police officers from initiating traffic stops for certain minor offenses.
But he has also championed employer-friendly measures including dramatically lowering the business income and receipts tax, requiring Thomas to walk a tightrope between often-antagonistic constituencies.
Thomas downplayed the tension Wednesday.
“I don’t think it’s a tug-of-war,” Thomas said in an interview. “Anytime you’re doing legislation that puts us in a position that’s going to change requirements that touch multiple industries like this, you expect some type of feedback.”
The bill now heads to the Council floor. Local 32BJ wields enormous influence in City Hall, and it’s unlikely the proposal will be stopped after progressing this far. But Thomas said additional amendments are likely, including potentially carving out certain industries from the training requirements.
“It’s important that we explore all options and put us in a position to make sure that … there’s not any unintended or ill-advised consequences,” Thomas said.
