Patrick said his administration is working on new regulations that would open the door to replacing some of the police details by hiring civilians, equipping them with orange safety vests and flags, and training them to direct traffic, especially on secondary roads.
Here, by the way, is some legal background on how this works:
There is no state law mandating that police officers protect workers at road construction sites, but the practice has become commonplace and has been fiercely protected by police unions. Some communities have labor contracts requiring that police staff construction sites.
Regulations authorizing the use of civilian flagmen on state-controlled secondary roads would encourage cities and towns to adopt similar measures, said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. “If the governor does it, it’s a huge signal that the state is finally going to stand up to the unions,” he said. “It will create a practice of using civilian flaggers. When that lesson is learned, I think municipalities will change their laws.”
Now, I understand why the police don’t want to see this change. But this kind of thing does not help advance the discussion:
Rick Brown – president of the State Police Association, the union representing state troopers – said police officers have the authority to stop traffic, close lanes, and issue citations, all of which make for safer construction sites.
“The traffic is flowing so fast, public safety has got to be the main issue here,” he said. “You’re going to see more accidents out there without seeing the police presence. They’re not going to slow down for a flagman.”
With all due respect, Mr. Brown, absent any evidence that the use of flagmen in the 49 other states has led to increased accidents as compared to Massachusetts (and if there is any such evidence, let’s see it), that doesn’t really make sense. Drivers are “not going to slow down for a flagman”? Of course they are. Flagmen that I’ve seen in other states hold big signs that say “slow” or “stop,” depending on the situation, and as far as I can tell, drivers respect those signs. Again, absent any evidence that the flagman system doesn’t work, it’s hard to see how the expense of our current system is justifiable.
Globe story
<
p>we could join the other 49 states (or is it 56) in using flagmen to slow down traffic instead of highly paid Police Officers (who are needed elsewhere putting criminals in prison… forever).
<
p>- The proof will be in the pudding though.
<
p>- The Police and the unions are adamantly against this plan.
<
p>- The Police will decide which detail can be handled by a flagman vs. a Police Officer. (Ugh)
<
p>- How much will the flagmen earn? This has got to be one of the “lowest” skilled labor positions (right above DNC Chairman) so certainly there should not be some $40/hour pay scale. If this happens, we have saved $0.
<
p>I give the Gov credit for this as I was one of the cynics who believed Deval would run from this issue with his ears covered rather than face the unions. I still feel this way to a degree until I see my issues above addressed. Without that, this is nothing but a farce.
<
p>A police officer in uniform at a work site is not working his hours for the PD. Detail work is in addition to and wholly separate from working the beat.
<
p>In fact, removing police detail work will result in fewer cops working at any one time, not more, precisely because the uniformed officers working details will instead be coaching Little League, enjoying a beer on the couch, grocery shopping, or some other activity not in uniform. Obviously, a police officer on patrol is far more effective at keeping the peace than one tethered to a single intersection, but since it isn’t an either-or issue your idea of freeing up cops to police the neighborhoods doesn’t jibe with reality.
<
p>
<
p>P.S.
<
p>If you ignore the hazard pay, and the outdoor detail in winter and summer, then sure. But still, if we only paid ’em $40/hour, it’d still be cheaper. My wife has to hire details in Boston all the time, and they cost her $100-$120/hr, which includes all the overhead of hiring them as well as their benefits and their salary for the day.
<
p>I know. My point was if they are not working at a paid detail, they are available for regular work or maybe overtime.
<
p>
<
p>Good. That’s why cops (and others) are not suppose to work 80 hour weeks. Do you want a guy driving a sup’d up crown vic equipped with a stun gun, mace and big gun who has just worked 8 hours, 2 details and then another 8 hours. He should go home and drink beer… Have you read how many hours the “top income cops” are working in the state?
<
p>Any comments from all you cop haters?
<
p>Do you think that there are police officers who aren’t working their regular shifts or necessary overtime for the department because they’re out working details instead? Can you cite a single example of this — because I simply can’t imagine a situation like this:
<
p>Chief: Hey Frankie, I need you Friday afternoon.
Officer: Sorry boss, I’ve got to work the construction detail on the corner of Main and 5th.
Chief: Oh, OK. I guess we just won’t staff that slot in the schedule. No worries Frank.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I agree, although I’d focus on the firemen first. We agree here — making sure policemen are well rested so they come to work alert and at 100% is a great argument for getting rid of details. But you must concede that removing policemen from details will result in fewer uniformed officers in public at any given time. Not the same amount, not more. There will be fewer cops on the streets at any given time if we get rid of police details. That may be a reasonable trade-off for smarter spending overall, but it is a ramification of the decision.
<
p>Yes I absolutely think there are police officers working details who refuse overtime. They “commit” to details in advance and can’t just change their minds because the Sergeant asks them to work tonight. I am not a cop and I have no first hand knowledge… Do you?
<
p>
<
p>stomv, this is obvious. But so what? There are so many examples we could use here to say paying for someone to do something will have some secondary effect/benefit therefore we should pay them (Employ EMTs at every beach even in the winter since NOT having them will reduce the amount of EMTs out there to help people…) The question is “Is that the best use of the Police Officer and of the money we pay them?”
<
p>I have defended Police on many posts here and I think they are good people. But wasting money by paying cops to be crossing guards is terrible mis-use of my money.
I’ve heard the argument that towns (like mine for instance) are hard up for money to pay for police officers. These details, then, serve two functions:
… to attract people to be a police officer? You’re telling me that unless it’s a six-figure job, we won’t be able to atttact qualified applicants? How, then, do we manage to fill all our other municipal needs (teachers, firefighters, sanitation, clerks) without the promise of such largess?
I have been against Police details for so long, it’s almost hard for me to consider them worthy.
<
p>That said, I also believe policing is complex and challenging, and should be rewarded commensurate with skills, education and experience. However, keeping them in uniform does yield much benefit in my book while they are doing details. The second consideration is the cost to consumers. These costs, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars per day must be passed along to tax payers, business, non-profits or whomever is compelled to hire them.
<
p>When I weigh the benefits, even considering your comments, I would rather be paying for more teachers, buildings or town utilities than supplementing their pay checks.
I would prefer to pay police a whole lot more and get better policing. Paying police more through this indirect channel seems crazy to me.
<
p>Further, it seems to lower the bar. At construction sites, if one must have a detail, one would want the person employed at it watching traffic the traffic. Instead, you’d think that the guy on detail has been hired to watch the ditch or entertain utility employees. That would seem to bake in poor work habits.
<
p>I don’t know whether my observation here is typical, but that’s what I see a lot of.
I think of this word whenever I hear Police Officers or Union officials talking about the safety provided to the public when Polic Officers are performing details. I admit to this being anecdotal but of all the details I have seen, on the pike, on highways, on smaller roads and bridges, I have “rarely” seen a police officer doing ANYTHING. They sit in their cars (I’ve seen them sleeping), the blab with the workers. And when they required to work, they usually will stop the traffic while a worker crosses the street o simply signals for cars to alternate flow in 2 directions.
<
p>It is a waste, we all know it and like many things it boils down to MONEY. They want it and that is all there is to this discussion. I have heard wives of Police Officers at least be honest about this on radio and TV. Let’s move on and use the right people in the right place. Flagmen can stop traffic as good as a cop in 99.(% of the cases and it is clearly NOT worth all the money we pay for that .1%.
evaluates if people “need” a firearm. Ugh.
<
p>My understanding is that the use of police details at the municipal level is not coded in charters and by-laws but rather in labor contracts.
<
p>What may be more helpful is state law which:
<
p>- makes details a non-negotiable item, or
– makes details a separate position — therefore, a policeman would need to apply for a flagman position as a second job (no overtime rate), or
– which exclusdes detail compensation from pension calculations
<
p>
“We’ve been working on it, and rather than just do a sort of a grandstanding gesture, we’ve really been trying to get something that we know will work,” Patrick said in an interview with the Associated Press.
<
p>—————-
<
p>Mitt Romney’s entire tenure was nothing but a grandstanding gesture, so I’m not suggesting Deval emulate this strategy. But… he needs to recognize that a “grandstanding gesture” can be good for one’s political capital, which he can then use to accomplish real goals. He should pick a few larger state projects and simply tell the Staties that they are not needed tomorrow. What will happen? Sure, they’ll probably march into court and kick up a big stink about the whole thing. But the wheels of justice turn slowly, and they will probably be SOL for a while. Meanwhile, this would be excellent politics — the Staties would be a strawman for government waste and Patrick could earn points by knocking it down, even if he loses at first. Meanwhile, his staff could draw up the real regulations, etc.
<
p>[Also, let’s remember that the Staties are not our friends…. versus some other impediments to reform that sometimes get in the way of good policy (cough, MTA, cough, GIC). If you can’t f___ over your political enemies, what’s the point of winning an election?]
<
p>Also, this will be good down the road. It will show the next interest group we need to take on that he’s willing to play rough and not a pushover. Fixing state government means facing off against a lot of powerful interest groups that want to preserve the status quo (certainly more powerful than the damn police unions). They need to think they should get on the train rather than trying to stop it.
Ok, so you are saying that the way to fiscal health is to
<
p>1) screw over the unions and force GIC (libertarian view)
<
p>2) ignor the revenue from casinos gambling. (big brother view)
<
p>Point # 1) means that you are fighting the people that vote for democrats.
<
p>Sorry to all the dreamers, but its true. Anyone that has worked on an election understands this point. If you don’t, go volunteer.
If you don’t give the union voters a reason to vote for democrats (worker protections, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, salary increases), why should they vote for democrats? Forcing, not negiotiating, them into GIC does not do this.
<
p>Its true. In a bubble, forcing people into GIC could save money, but it overrules the rights of unions to negiotiate. Come back to reality.
<
p>Point #2)
You want more revenue: casinos bring that.
<
p>This might be the best part about the BMG plan to fiscal sanity.
<
p>Screw unions because it will save money for the rest of us
<
p>No to casinos, because even though it will bring more money for the rest of us, you shouldn’t do it, because I said so, so lets say not to the revenue.
<
p>(how many posts have there been about today’s casino study that shows the revenue the state could have each year? ZERO)
<
p>This argument is part big brother (gambling is bad and brings social ill), part libertarian (if putting people into the GIC saves money for the greater good, we shoud do it.)
<
p>Pick a side and go with it.
Or Roosevelt? Or Lincoln?
“how many posts have there been about today’s casino study that shows the revenue the state could have each year?”
<
p>So freakin’ write one! This site is written by the users. You think something should be shared? Share it.
I’m sick of the handwringing. If you live in this state and in this country and derive benefit and protection thereof, then you are entitled and obligated to assist in the funding of same. We have not, do not, and will not live in a perfect world. There are those that have, and those that have not. That’s life. Get used to it.
<
p>As for cops and details: Periodically an essential public safety issue. 75% of the time an absolute waste of money.
I don’t know why the governor is going after one segment of the police in this state when it seems that the state police are the worse offenders.
Surprised noone has commented here, given that even the Globe editorial came out against the COLA.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
<
p>As a pension actuary, astounded to learn from reading the editorial that funding for the COLA increase wouldn’t occur until 2024. Sorry to say to the readers on this board, but public pensions are beyond the scope of responsibility, even compared to the worst examples found in the private sector. And that’s saying something.
When people here read facts that go against their own thoughts, they ignore them. What I’d like to know is when are we going to fund all these pension systems in the State? And how exactly will that happen. Now was not the time to give pensioners a COLA, but maybe a Coke-Cola.
My limited experience with government pensions has been that they are on about the same level of the Hoffa era Teamster plans. Still amuses me that there is such a fixation in this state on the returns of the pension fund. I’m far more concerned about the promises made from the same fund; a heckuva lot more important than performance benchmarks.
people. The pension system in the state is mimicing Social Security in that they are paying out fer more than is coming in. There should be a law that says EVERY pension system must be balanced and funded. If it goes out of whack one year then either payment adjustments have to made, more contribution have to be made or the State contributes more. But stop ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
<
p>Compared to the shortfall, and performance below a few hundred percent is beyond meaningless.
doesn’t have all of these funny little legislative quirks, in that if you can finagle yourself to get “fired”, your pension doubles, or this ludicrous “buy back” provision (wherein you can add your missing contributions to get a higher pension, ignoring the consequences of missing employer funding for these higher numbers). The ultimate real problem though is that there is absolutely noone who is ultimately responsible for these missteps, as the feeling is the (future) taxpayers will take care of it. At least on the private side when the walls cave in the PBGC only guarantees up to about $45k of pensions. We’re on the wall here for every extreme number out there.
the provisions in some of these “public” pensions where you work your whole career in position “a” getting paid “X”. But then, a short time before retirement they bump you way up the ladder and your entire pension gets calculated on that short time your were in the higher position. That sounds illegal to me.
basically ignore IRC 415 (maximum benefit limitations) right and left, who cares? Those limits should only apply to those nasty private sector folks (ignoring the argument that excessive deductions on the private side of life are about as damaging as excessive expenditures on the government side).