Boston City Council is considering an ordinance that would force employers to fund 40 hours of hands-on training for unarmed security guards, replacing what one union leader describes as little more than watching videos on a computer. The measure, formally known as Docket #1541, had its first public hearing Tuesday before the Committee on Government Operations after being referred there on August 5.
The ordinance, sponsored by City Councilors Henry Santana and Ruthzee Louijeune, would require employers to fund an initial 40-hour training program for new hires within 90 days, and give existing employees 180 days to complete the same training, according to WBZ NewsRadio. Guards would also need to complete an annual eight-hour refresher course. If the ordinance passes, the city of Boston would be responsible for certifying which training programs and courses qualify.
Santana said minimum training requirements are needed for security guards, framing the measure as both a safety fix and a workforce issue. Samuel Gomes Rodrigues Jr., a security guard quoted in the WBZ report, put it bluntly: people look to security guards for help and assume they know what to do, he said, adding that training in recent years has mostly involved watching videos on a computer.
A Curriculum Built Around Real Crisis Response
Rather than relying on internal corporate video modules, the ordinance would mandate instruction administered by certified non-profit organizations, covering conflict de-escalation, overdose response, and mental health crisis intervention, as reported by Banker & Tradesman. That shift toward third-party, in-person instruction is central to the proposal, and it mirrors the union-backed push playing out in other cities.
SEIU Local 32BJ, which represents unarmed security guards in Boston, supports the ordinance. Kevin Brown, the union's executive vice president, is featured in the WBZ report as a voice backing the push for standardized training. The union already operates a multi-state training infrastructure delivering certified courses in conflict de-escalation, CPR, and building safety to property service members, per course listings from the 32BJ Training Fund.
Downtown Safety Concerns And A Workforce Argument
The proposal arrives amid heightened pressure from downtown Boston residents for improved public safety measures following a fatal fight on Boston Common, the same Banker & Tradesman report notes. Santana has also emphasized the ordinance's economic dimension, pointing out that unarmed security jobs are critical entry-level positions predominantly held by Black and brown workers who currently lack access to standardized career training.
That workforce instability is not abstract. A May 2025 industry report from SEIU Local 32BJ found that private security officers experience a median job tenure of just nine months, a churn rate the union links in part to non-standardized training practices across employers. Santana previously served as Mayor Michelle Wu's inaugural Executive Director of the Office of Civic Organizing before his election as an At-Large City Councilor, according to city records.
A Regulatory Gap Cities Are Trying To Fill
The push exists because state law leaves a gap. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 147 allows the State Police Certification Unit to license security agencies, but it imposes no individual licensing or mandatory training requirements for the unarmed guards those agencies employ. WBZ NewsRadio reports that Massachusetts is one of 22 states nationwide without state-mandated training requirements for unarmed security personnel.
Boston is not alone in trying to legislate around that gap at the city level. Philadelphia City Council advanced similar SEIU Local 32BJ-backed legislation in October 2025 requiring security employers to fund 40 hours of initial third-party training and eight annual refresher hours, an identical structure to what Boston is now considering, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Whether Boston's proposal follows the same path through committee and toward a full council vote remains to be seen, as does how the city would handle certifying non-profit training providers and whether business groups will push back on the cost or seek a broader exemption.
