I noticed the Floyd management topic had some positive results. I wonder if anything has changed in security because of this topic?

It seems the corporate compliance plan at Floyd is BS. Nothing whatsoever has been changed in security and safety. Our report was filed over two weeks ago. This may seem like no big deal to them. They apparently don't realize how many nurses they will lose over their ignorance of a legitimate problem.

Here is a quote from a corporate executive about management placement. It is not talking about Floyd but it seems to fit right in with what the problem is in security and apparently materials management:

"In a corporate climate, departmental structure and the management thereof are key to success, organization, and healthy morale. When placement of managers is accomplished by strict standards of proven leadership skills, experience, and training a proper departmental structure will be the result. Problems arise when the placement policies are not exercised by all departments in the organization. Most often this is because administrators prioritize their attention on departments which are deemed more necessary than others. For example, if service departments such as security, cleaning, and building maintenance are placed low on an administrator’s list of priorities because they do not make money for the organization, the whole organization will suffer. These service departments are the backbone of the organization and directly effect the public’s view of the organization as a whole. These departments should have the same departmental structure and manager placement standards as all other departments.
Actual example of improper departmental structure and manager placement: In a service department of a large organization the director was put in place due to the former director leaving without notice. No standards of proven leadership or training were adhered to. The new director placed individuals in management positions according to his opinion. Due to lack of experience and leadership skills, the director got some right and others wrong. The major mistake in placement by the director was appointment of an assistant. Some people are born leaders and some are not. In this situation neither were leaders. The assistant the director chose was a very controlling individual, likened to a dictator but with little experience or training for the position. The assistant even controlled the director. Almost every decision made by director was proposed by mood or controlling whim of the assistant. The director, not being a leader and not having placement standards to adhere to, made his best assumption and chose someone with a control problem. The end result was a department whose morale crumbled along with appearance, purpose, and everything in between.  In other words “The Blind Leading the Blind”."