Looks like the police unions have saved their well-paid details perk, preventing the state from saving a bundle by using flagmen.
Police should be paid well and receive good benefits. But the way to do it is to give them salaries and benefits for actual police work. High-paid details means that our transportation budget is burdened with unnecessary costs.
Worse, details encourage police to rack up overtime flagging cars past construction sites, meaning that when you dial 911, the police who come may well be tired out and off their game.
Together we can do better than this.
Please share widely!
<
p>Like the cowardly lion in the wizard of Oz!?!
<
p>He is searching for courage. But, ala, the search here is fleetting.
<
p>Profile in Courage? Deval won’t get an award here.
<
p>
Flaggers: $9.50 per hour …
First Patrick’s vision to seed the Biotech industry with research and development funds was hijacked by politicians who wanted a piece of the action. Now this back pedaling to address that situation that NO OTHER STATE in the country has.
<
p>These two examples, along with the grossly unrealistic provision that requires a 70 percent affirmative vote by municipal unions to join the state’s health plan–saving local communities millions in health care costs, leads me to the conclusion that real reform will not be unattainable under the current political leadership in this state. (Not that it was possible under the past Republican leadership either.)
<
p>Therefore, how can one support new revenue proposals such as local meals and hotel taxes or casinos, which will potentially compromise the state’s social fabric?
<
p>This may be the week that the dream of a new style of government finally died. Patrick will certainly deliver better government initiatives at the edges of government than his three predecessors, but his promise for real fundamental change seems to have been pure campaign rhetoric. Sad.
<
p>So what are the requirements?
<
p>Then there’s this point:
<
p>
<
p>So what Mr. Beckwith observes is that if we cut police detail, the union will want to protect it’s members by helping them make up some of those lost wages elsewhere. Of course. After all, these guys made purchasing decisions [like homes] based on total income, including the reasonable presumption that detail work would continue. The detail work is a subsidy to the pay; take it away and you’re cutting salaries of policemen. They’ll want at least some of that money back, and I don’t blame them. As Justinian observed, we ought to be paying the cops an appropriate wage.
<
p>I don’t either. Hard to raise a family on a base pay of $65,000 or so. Somebody’s got to get a another part time job, and even with a couple of private gigs, many public employees can’t afford to live in the town they serve.
Even if there were no police details, most cops with a few years behind their belts would be earning wages of at least $65k. There’s still plenty of other overtime opportunities, one’s that truly do require police officers (such as large events). If there’s one member of a household earning 65, and another earning even half that, you’re talking about a family in excess of $100k a year. I’m sorry, but $100k a year is a salary that can pay to live in almost any community across this state. I really don’t see why police deserve these luxuries when they aren’t provided for any other municipal employee – many teachers work as coaches for a little extra income, putting in far more hours for their ‘overtime’ work, and making a paltry sum for that additional effort. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not out against police officers, but flag men and women would create new, good jobs, while saving many other municipal jobs from being laid off (including cops!), by saving this state hundreds of millions over the next few years.
<
p>I’m speechless. Seriously. Get out in the world more often.
but I actually just gave Gary a 6! ROFL
View and download the 2006 Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Standard, a report on the real costs of living in Massachusetts.
And then factor in the recent increases in the price of gass and food.
From the WaPo the median household income in 2006 was $59,963…
Male f/t income $51,960 Female f/t income $40,174.
<
p>At the beginning of the FY 09 budget season these headlines appeared…
published in the Globe. Go west of Worcester and you may have a case for officers having to struggle a little to raise a family on their base incomes, but then again, so is everyone else.
<
p>The unions (minority of working people) have taxpayers by the nads because there are no politicians of any stripe willing to go heels and do the right thing.
<
p>I wouldn’t mind just the Quinn Bill (that served a purpose and elevated the educational level of officers statewide) or the Details, but both is just a joke on us.
What’s the median pay for households with cops? Comparing the median household pay with the top few hundred cops is not particularly instructive.
A teacher with a master’s degree in this state can make less than 40k. They have little to no ability to supplement their income.
<
p>I value cops and the jobs they do, but they shouldn’t be the only municipal employees that can have real purchasing power. Their purchasing power also shouldn’t come in the way of the rest of the entire state.
<
p>So many cops earn way more than 80k, often with very little education and by working hours that are overly long. I don’t want to put cops out of their homes, but we can’t keep doing the same, crazy things that we’re currently doing. Furthermore, details are not the only opportunity cops have for overtime – just a good slice of it. They still need to attend events with large numbers of people, etc. I believe I’ve read that details actually comprise less than 50% of their overtime opportunities.
<
p>There’s plenty of room for compromise here which would allow the state to save hundreds of millions over the next few years, but still allow cops to afford to live in their own communities – which is well more than many teachers could say. If certain police officers owe mortgages so large that they could barely afford to pay them as is, I’m sorry, but that’s just not the state’s problem. That’s making bad economic decisions – and I don’t see why cops should be any more protected there than than anyone else who takes big risks. This new law would probably take over a year to implement, so that would give families with police officers in them plenty of time to reappraise the situation and make tough decisions if necessary. However, for the vast majority of police officers, I don’t think there would be many tough decisions. Meanwhile, across the state, jobs would be saved and new jobs – with good salaries and benefits – would actually be created (flag staff), all the while the state, communities and every day citizens (through taxes and construction projects) save a hefty bundle.
I honestly didn’t know we were creating new jobs with good salaries and benefits, and counting on saving towns and cities a healthy bundle at the same time. Will they need more than the very little education that you need to be a police officer with a couple of part time jobs and a working spouse making the $100,000 you need to live anywhere?
The contracts for most police officers [everyone but the State Police and the MBTA police] are negotiated town by town, city by city. There is a team backed by the “blue line” policeman’s organization to provide muscle. The muscle provided is greater than, say Somerville can equal, or any other town.
<
p>The only way to limit this function for financially strapped cities and towns would be for legislation to provide boundaries.
<
p>Given that we are still enduring government by lobbying and back room deals, this boundary, which would protect municipal finances and transportation funds has not occurred.
<
p>A coment I made long ago, about ordinary citizens needing to learn to speak up and follow issues that care about come to mind.
<
p>On the otherhand, there is power in numbers – and after being ignored for 20 years [no change in rates paid for their work from 21985
2005], the indigent defense bar formed its own association, and hired a lobbyist, and is now taken seriously. “Should” it be that wayor do I think it is a good thing that is how it is? Well, no.<
p>It appears if cities, towns, and transportation interests wish to change this practice, and protect funds for actual repairs of Roads and Bridges, something along the line of “Coalition for Safe Roads and Bridges” [CSRB] or Association of Municipalities for Transportation Reform [AMTR] needs to be formed, dues need to be paid, and legislative representation, hired. Sad but true.
<
p>After all, who can afford to be away from their day job the amount of time needed to really be a player on this issue? Not me.
1985-2005 and NOT lined out! sorry.
And it would be a job anyone could do. Police officers aren’t just earning their normal salary doing many of these details, it’s time and a half. We could pay someone without the skills needed to be a police officer, training people with the skills they need to be details, which would mean a great net savings. I’ve read that these kinds of positions would pay around $15/hour – which comes out to almost $30k a year, with benefits. The median personal income across the state is around $42k/year, so considering this job requires little education, provides benefits and would train people in real skills they could take with them, that’s not a bad deal at all.
<
p>
<
p>Honestly, this sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s a run on and I don’t really know how to answer it. If you’re trying to say that these new jobs would be bad, because they’re not paying $100k/year, you’re nuts though. The median personal income in this state is $42k, not 100k. If you’re lucky enough to have an income over $100k, more power to you, but you’re in the clear minority of this state.
<
p>$100,000/year is well more than the median household income of Massachusetts. Even in sea-side Swampscott, with its fine schools, high MCAS stores, easy access to Boston, great public transportation and dozens upon dozens of multi-million dollar homes… median family income is less than $90k, never mind 100. The median family income in Brookline, Lynnfield, Milton (where our governor lives) and a whole host of other, extraordinarily wealthy towns all have median household incomes less than $100k. In Newton, one of the wealthiest cities of its size across the country, median household income is 101k. There’s a very small number of towns across this state where median family income exceeds $100k/year…. so let’s try to remain firmly gripped in reality, okay?
Teachers generally have a higher level of education and should (and many times do) make a good salary, as far as you saying that they have little to no ability to make more money, you’re very wrong there. There are after school activities (clubs, driver’s ed, sports) and tutoring that can make them more money, and they also have the entire summer open to them for other opportunities (camps, summer school, travel programs). I know quite a few teachers, from family to friends that all take advantage of these and they are making more than competitive salaries.
<
p>As for police officers. They may not all have the same level of education as what we expect from teachers, but they put their life on the line every day and should be paid accordingly. You’re comment that – with a spouse – they can make 100k isn’t a valid argument. You’re in essence saying that all police officers should be married in order to afford a home in this state – and I don’t think you want to get into the yenta business 😉
<
p>I say pay people what their education/experince level and the job is worth and make overtime opportunities appropriate to that level (which in my opnion, just for the record, isn’t standing by the side of the road waving at traffic). I know a few officers and these details are usually not spread out evenly among all officers (some want it more than others) and this is where you can get a real imbalance of pay.
Some coaches earn a thousand or two, tops, for their efforts… most do it for free. Maybe a few head coaches will earn more than that, but it’ll come out to minimum wage when you compare their salaries to the time put into doing preparing teams. My father is an athletic director and has been the head coach for high school football, basketball and golf teams, so I’m well aware of the compensation that teachers can get from coaching – and believe me, the vast majority of these coaches aren’t doing it for monetary compensation, that’s for sure. More importantly, most teachers aren’t even qualified to coach. They could help with extracurricular activities, but there’s even less money there. All of these require far larger time commitments, and pay far less, than working a detail for a few hours and getting time and a half for it.
<
p>Add that to the fact that teachers don’t stop working when they get home (tests and papers to correct), there just isn’t a lengthy period of time to make up the difference with other part time jobs. That’s one big reason why teachers, on average, earn less than what many cops do.
<
p>
<
p>Just 10 minutes away from my house there was a shooting at a high school in Lynn, so let’s not pretend that there aren’t risks for teachers as well. My biology teacher in high school was bit by one of her students. A neighbor of mine in Lynn was a Vice Principal and had his head bashed in. Teachers have to put up with all kinds of stress, dangers and risks every single day. It’s not the same as police officers, but let’s not ignore the fact that it does exist.
<
p>Above all, I think this whole conversation is absurd. Most teachers aren’t paid enough. We can all agree with that, right? That’s not the question. The question is “are details fair or unfair?” Clearly, using any metric I can come up with, they’re unfair. They cost this state too much money, it’s a perk so out of whack that it doesn’t exist anywhere else – be it different fields, different states or different countries. Ultimately, all police details end up doing driving up the cost of construction, municipal budgets and forcing this state to cut programs and lay off hundreds to come up with the $100 million we could save by moving away from this program, all the while creating flag detail positions that provide who knows how many jobs at very livable wages, with benefits, while not preventing cops from earning lucrative wages and benefits that are still above and beyond what the vast majority of the citizens of this commonwealth enjoy. Why is this even a debate?
that’s all I have to say about that. 3s and 0s aren’t for when you disagree with people. If you disagree with me, explain why and back it up, otherwise you may as well concede defeat.
I gave you a 3 because you either didn’t read my post or you chose to ignore what I said so you could continue to make this about your father’s inadequate pay and nothing else. I had started to respond, but didn’t feel the need as you didn’t listen the first time around.
I’m not writing this for any teacher, least of all my father. He’s worked his butt off in the system, working his way up, but he’s the exception. I’m writing this because forcing police details onto our state is essentially legalized bribery – and the whole state is paying for it.
<
p>Do you feel so strongly about this issue because you’re a cop? Or your spouse is? Or a member of the family? At least I let my conflicts of interest known.
<
p>I didn’t address some of your points because you completely ignored the fact that I already rebutted your greatest charge in the thread. Maybe you didn’t read it – you could have responded thusly. However, since you didn’t, I’m assuming you did. I hope that’s not an unfair assumption.
<
p>Furthermore, I didn’t just talk about teachers – I rebutted your second, ill-conceived point on paying police officers for the inherent danger of their job. I addressed that by saying in my own, very safe community of Swampscott, I knew a teacher who was bit by a student. I failed to mention the fact that there were more than one incidents where our school was threatened with a bomb, where fights broke out which teachers had to stop (at their own peril), where large knives were confiscated and students were brought out in handcuffs. I also failed to mention that the VP who’s head was bashed in, a neighbor of my father’s at the time, nearly died and I don’t think ever returned to work.
<
p>Again, I’m not trying to compare the dangers of teaching to the dangers of being a police officer, but I am making the point that in no community is there a teacher free from inherent risk, never mind the daily harassment from students and parents.
<
p>
<
p>I absolutely agree. Let’s make sure to tell that to the majority of the world who work on salary: they’ll never see a perk half as good. Look, I’m not out here to say that cops shouldn’t be making a great salary and getting great benefits. I’ve been one of the few on this community to oppose forcing all municipal employees to join the GIC without collective bargaining. However, construction details represent only a part of police overtime opportunities: they also get to cover for fellow officers on vacation as well as cover events in the area. Combined, they account for as much or more in overtime revenue as detail work: thus, police officers, irregardless of whether we use trained flag workers or not, will continue to earn salaries in excess of their municipal employee peers. I would not support any measure to take away additional overtime opportunities from police officers – I only support eliminating them from covering construction sites because that makes absolutely, positively no sense whatsoever. (Like I said, legalized bribery).
<
p>Will it be a noticeable pay cut? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s unfair or unwarranted: having such a perk, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to this state (and all the people we’ve had to lay off to pay for it) is a far greater sin. Again, I can’t see why this is a debate. We can continue to pay police officers lucrative salaries, create hundreds of new jobs with very livable wages and benefits and save this money $350-650 million over the next 10 years. We’d be 100% insane, of the lock-em-up variety, to not establish a flag worker system.
in no circumstances did I ever say that we should expect police officers to have a spouse in order to pay their mortgage. With most police officers having earning power well beyond the state median income of $42k, they should have no more trouble than the rest of us paying to live here (less, in fact). Of course, affording to live in Massachusetts has been a struggle for many families, especially those who are single or with numerous kids, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the rest of Massachusetts should be paying through the nose so we can create a special class of a lucky few, when they’d still be pretty darn lucky without being able to detail construction sites.
selectively read much?
2-3 posts that address every single last element of your critiques. You need to do better than that attempt at saying I’m “selectively reading,” because – clearly – I’m not.
that wrote a blog. I have to say that my days of being optimistic about government and politics – as if they can be changed – are coming to a quick end. I’m about ready to check back out… (hopefully, I feel better tomorrow!)
“The only way OUT is IN.”
Don’t check out just yet – see my post below.
I don’t usually criticize the media – they have a job to do, and while I don’t always agree with the coverage, the media plays an important role in our civic life. However, in the case of the Boston Globe’s story on police details today, they just plain got it wrong.
<
p>But rather than take my word for it, let me lay out my case and you can draw your own conclusions:
<
p>1. Timing: The administration has been developing guidelines to address the issue of paid details in order to meet the 90-day directive of the legislature and Governor Patrick. A draft of these regulations is expected in mid-June. At that point, the media won’t have to speculate, they will know. Why write the story now, before the regulations are drafted, particularly when the administration went on record with the Globe stating we were not backing down from the Governor’s commitment on this issue?
<
p>2. Our Statement: Our complete, on-the-record comment to the Globe for this story was the following. “The Governor first raised this issue in November, and he has been consistent since then in his desire to address this issue in a manner that is fiscally responsible and places public safety first. Secretary Cohen is proceeding according to the mandate from the legislature and the clear directive of the Governor to develop within 90-days a set of regulations for the safe and appropriate use of civilian flaggers on construction projects.”
<
p>The Globe chose not to print the second part of the statement above, despite that fact that it is directly responsive to their premise and in fact directly contradicts the main point of their story.
<
p>My point is simple: The Governor raised this issue first, he has directed Secretary Cohen to come up with the appropriate use of civilian flaggers, and we have been clear that we have not backed away from the Governor’s directive. All we ask is that the media and the public reserve judgement until the draft regulations are developed in mid-June. Then you can decide for yourselves whether Governor Patrick was able to do what previous Repulican governors have not – bring reform to paid detials.
First, thanks for the comprehensive, well thought out answer. Believe me, I will be watching for that release in mid June [though I will be out of state 6/10-6/18 at a minimum dealing with family issues in Michigan].
<
p>And my Willy Wonka quote [above] was NOT intended to be flip at all – the only way OUT of poor governance is for more of those who are converned like Ryan and I, to get IN to governance including civic engagement, which is happening. Both Ryan and I are now on the Communications Committee of the SDC and involved in widening and opening communication and information sharing.
<
p>So, Ryan – don’t check out, keep it up.
<
p>And Doug – do this as an independent post. Please.
We are all fortunate to have Deborah and Ryan serving our party and the community.
<
p>Participation makes us stronger as a party and a commonwealth!
<
p>I, for one, am heartened by the dedication to civiv involvement on this Web site. Each of us may express ourselves differently, but we all have the best interest of our party, the commonwealth, and the nation at heart!
<
p>
I’m hopeful we can get this through the House over the next year or two. There’s really not any reason, in this case, to not be a part of the rest of the country on police details. It’s sad to see all the programs we need to cut, the programs that will never see the light of day (but should) and the rainy day funds being used when next year could be worse. Saving 36.5-66.5 million is a hefty portion of the entire deficit. We all like to talk about finding creative solutions to save money. 49 states have beat us to the punch, so it’s not exactly creative, but it’s still a solution.
<
p>I’m not checking out, but I really would like to see progress on this issue – the administration and the House are coming up with great ideas to make Massachusetts better, but most of them cost money. This is one of the easiest ways to help pay for them.
It’s a bit of a political risk to come out for flagmen, even though it’s a blindingly obvious good idea. Darned if I’ve ever seen a police officer on traffic duty ever do something that required police training…often I”ve seen them doing things that don’t require a pulse.
<
p>But here’s where the past catches up with you. Any state rep is going to be dealing with significant harassment (not lobbying, but harassment) if they support this measure. Meanwhile, in the back of their heads they’ll remember the last time some of them went out on a limb to support a Patrick initiative. I’d hope that Deval will make a couple stops and show-n-tells to build public support for this — using whatever credibility he still has with the grassroots.
Your post caption is premature, much the same the Globe’s article may be premature. The Globe article mentions the regs that will be out soon, but predicts little progress because of the Union protections built in.
<
p>So, the question is, how should you measure the success or failure of the upcoming regulations. Isn’t the sole measure a dollar calculation?
<
p>That is, if overtime drops, and safety isn’t compromised, then Home Run.
<
p>If overtime is materially unchanged and safety too is or isn’t affected, then Strike out.
<
p>What the administration’s measure for success or failure?
If overtime is materially unchanged and safety doesn’t decline, than you’ve made no progress.
<
p>If overtime is materially unchanged and safety also declines, then you’ve struck out.
<
p>
<
p>Personally, I think the public benefits from having cops on sites, particularly ones near complex intersections or along heavily trafficked routes. The public also pays more when the cop is doing a public works project. The private sector also pays more when the cop is doing a private works project.
<
p>The question is: at what point is it not financially efficient? There is near unanimous agreement that a cop isn’t needed on a country road when a cherry picker is being used to trim some branches near a utility pole. I suspect that there is also near unanimous agreement that cops would be better than flagmen if NStar is trenching in the middle of Kenmore Square or at the intersection of Mass Ave and Boyleston. Of course, most projects fall somewhere in between, and precisely where the public benefits of policemen directing traffic, dispersed policemen available for an emergency, and salary subsidization are outweighed by the added financial burden of the requirement.
I don’t get where this anger against police details comes from. Maybe it’s the liberal inclination to be against police in general, or something.
<
p>Cops in Massachusetts are paid much, much better than many of their counterparts around the country. But they are paid better because they work more, and spend more time on the job, than anywhere else in the country. And much of it is paid for through private companies, not just the government (yes, you can make the argument that it’s passed down and blah blah).
<
p>And personally, I think we get much better and more professional cops as a result. Public safety in this state has more of a career track and an opportunity to make good money than in other places. Try going to a lot of other states, and you’ll find that most cops are poorly paid, demoralized, complete jackasses who take their anger at their sucky life and their $35k a year job with ticket quotas out on all the people they stop. A cousin on mine in Atlanta got stopped for her first ticket, wasn’t going that fast, but was having a really bad day and started crying. The cop gave her a ticket and was a complete asshole.
<
p>Try taking a look at bpdnews.com. Half the arrests occur from Boston cops on details who see illegal crap happening. The dispersal of police in urban areas, often paid for by private companies, serves a significant public good, and people tend to take cops a lot more seriously than a flagger. And on the highway, it’s completely ridiculous to say that having cops there doesn’t save lives at construction sites. Nobody here can pretend that when they see those blue lights a-flashing, they don’t slow the hell down.
<
p>Yes, there may be certain places where they are unnecessary. But then, you also have to take into account the structure you’d have to put in place and the overhead of training and hiring flaggers, dealing with the administrative costs and paying for supervisors and equipment, benefits, etc. Once you factor those in, it might not be all that beneficial to replace detail cops with flaggers on those few rural roads where the cops aren’t necessary. And in the very places where they aren’t necessary, those are the places that cops need the income the most.
<
p>Sorry, but personally I think that cops deserve to make a lot more money than any other municipal employee. And allowing for that results in more qualified, professional, career-oriented candidates than the “do you want fries with that?” style cops they get in other states.
But then, “dudeur” WHY are we the ONLY state among 50 to require police at these construction sites as the ONLY allowed hirees to act as flag men????
The Governor floated the notion of restricting the use of police details in November and quickly backed off it. Then he, along with Legislative leadership, supported the transportation reform bill, which called for new regulations on police details. Again, he backed off the call for reform, shortly thereafter — http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
<
p>If he’s got something up his sleeve, great, but the current track record is not promising.
<
p>And here’s a challenge for the netroots and the “transportation advocates” – the Executive Office of Transportation is currently writing the regulations that will govern the use of police details in the future. At the first hearing, only two speakers spoke on behalf of restricting the use of police details, the rest of the audience and the speakers were all from police unions and related organizations — here are the statements: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/dow…
<
p>The next and final hearing is June 25, where the draft regs will be reviewed. If you want to make a difference, participate.
Steve, I understand that you are skeptical. All I ask is that people reserve final judgment until the draft regulations are made public in June. At that point, the public will have a clear understanding of the administration’s position on this issue, and everyone can decide for themselves whether the Governor delivered on the promise of change.
<
p>I would argue, however, that the Governor has a strong track record of bringing change to state government. Look at the Turnpike – Alan Lebovidge has done a tremendous job saving $14 million already, instituting management reforms, and reigning in past abuses. At DSS, the Governor has instituted a new Child Advocate, and at the Division of Insurance, the Governor has brought managed competition in auto insurance to Massachusetts.
<
p>As to your last point, I very much agree and would encourage all who care about this issue, on either side, to attend the hearing and lend their voices to the process.
The argument I’ve heard from cops (and I don’t necessarily agree with it) is that since Massachusetts is a prevailing wage state, “flagmen” would have to be hired at “general laborer” wages somewhere near $25/hour, not $9.50/hour. When you compare to the cost of cops, which is around $30/hour, it’s not much of a difference.
<
p>I don’t agree with that because I think that if faced with the choice of paying 100 people $120k/year or 100 people $80k/year plus 20 people $50k/year, the latter is better for the economy because it spreads the money around more.
<
p>I would agree that in order to make this work and to not result in a pay cut for most cops, some kind of pay increase would be necessary — not so that people earning their $150k+ would be able to keep those numbers, but to compensate for people who are at the $65k salary range but who can easily and routinely bring in $90k, and who count on that.
First, in some cases, local police union contracts guarantee detail workers a four hour minimum. So if a small project is done in 45 minutes, we pay the officer for 3.25 hours of work. Nice perk — and a ridiculous giveway of money.
<
p>This is one issue that, according to one rep I spoke with, is being looked at carefully.
<
p>Second, I think that state police details actually are paid a higher rate for work on state-owned roads like the Pike (will try to confirm this).
<
p>Regards,
<
p>Tedy Hagler
I knew we were a prevailing wage state, never put this together with the flagmen
<
p>