So say today’s Globe and Herald. The Herald says the expected savings to the state are about $5 million a year. The regulations won’t apply to projects on local roads, but the hope is that the state’s new approach will set an example for municipalities.
Specifics haven’t been announced yet, (UPDATE: the proposed regulations are here – thanks Mark) but here’s what the Globe reported:
The new regulations will probably require civilian flaggers on state roads where the speed limit is below 45 miles per hour, as well as on low-traffic roads where the speed limit is higher. Flaggers will also be used on sites where barriers are used to block off construction sites on a high-speed, high-traffic road.
Some roads – generally those with speed limits above 45 miles per hour and with more than 4,000 vehicles per day – will still rely on sworn police officers to monitor traffic.
It means that flaggers would probably be placed on a construction site on Route 2 in Charlemont, where traffic is light, but a police officer would be used on Route 2 in Concord, where traffic is much heavier. Flaggers would be possible, though less likely, on the major interstates.
The relatively conservative Beacon Hill Institute had kind words for the Gov:
“There’s a crack in the dam now,” said David Tuerck, who is director of the Beacon Hill Institute and has criticized Patrick for not going far enough to crack down on police details. “The governor has shown a great deal of political courage in taking this step.”
I think that’s right. It’s unreasonable to expect a complete abandonment of using police details on all construction sites throughout the state in one fell swoop, even assuming that that would be a good idea in theory. If the reports are accurate, the administration’s approach is a very good start on a complicated issue.
Also noteworthy is the praise that the Governor is getting on this from some strident critics. Our own JohnD said:
The Legislature deserves an F for proposing this [pension bill] and passing it…
But the Governor deserves credit for standing up to many opponents and using his veto pen wisely. I have never been a fan of Deval and I have many reservations, but the recent movement concerning “Flagmen” has potential and this veto is another fiscally responsible action.
Great job Governor (did I say that?).
Similarly, from a rather blunt commenter at the Herald:
Cops have been intimidating, extorting and sucking off this state for far too long. They are nothing less than criminals in blue uniforms as far as I am concerned. Lord knows that I am no fan of “Cadillac” Deval… but if he pulls off this “one small step” for the taxpayers of Massachusetts, I will have to give him credit for it!
It will be most interesting to see how this one plays out, and whether municipalities do indeed start changing their policies once the state regulations go into effect. Stay tuned.
to someone who is a strong proponent of keeping the police details, and one of the arguments he used is under states prevailing-wage law, the flagmen would be getting paid virtually the same amount of money. I confess that I have literally no idea how this law works and am wondering if someone can help me out here?
That may be true, but is is better economic policy to pay some police officers $120k+/year (when their base salary is around $60k), or to pay them less but have other people employed making $40-50k as flagmen?
<
p>Is it better to have some police working 80-hour weeks? Seems to me that this high-stress work should be accompanied by significant down-time.
Some police officers’ home lives suffer b/c they work such long hours. The money is hard to resist when it’s just sitting there for light duty.
The prevailing wage law is somewhat more dynamic than this. It will fall as more workers are trained as flagmen, so the savings may be delayed, but not non-existent. Also, it can be calculated in different ways, perhaps looking to neighboring states. The fact of the matter is that this wage has never really been bargained over because of the regulations requiring that only police officers serve in this role. Opening this up to a broader group of people could even be considered a different classification of job. It’s definately true, however, that this is only the beginning of the fight, not the end; saving real money will require DOT and MassHighway to keep pushing here even after the regulations are in place.
<
p>I like tying high vehicular traffic to police details. But, why only count cars? In the Boston metro area, there are plenty of intersections where the number of pedestrian crossings rivals the number of vehicular crossings — which is more dangerous a scenario, an intersection where 4000 cars and no pedestrians pass, or one where 3000 cars and 3000 pedestrians pass through? I contend that it’s likely the latter. I also contend that pedestrians are less likely to obey the commands of a flagman than drivers, but that they are equally likely to obey the commands of a policeman.
<
p>So, what about those on foot?
and I don’t see people blowing past crossing guards. People will obey the flagmen because they don’t want to get in a head-on collision.
A flagman wears an orange vest half open, a dirty pair of jeans, and construction boots.
<
p>A crossing guard wears a pseudo-police uniform, complete with a hat, crisp uniform, and black shoes.
<
p>A flagman swings a dowel with orange plastic on it.
<
p>A crossing guard uses white gloves or flashlight-like devices.
<
p>A flagman is near a construction site, and protects cars from hitting each other or from hitting construction people or equipment.
<
p>A crossing guard is near a school or school route, and protects cars from hitting little kids.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t think that drivers are anywhere near as careful around flagmen or construction sites as they are around crossing guards.
I have a family member who is a police officer and I know details is where the money’s at.
<
p>Would there be too much resistance to it?
This is ALL ABOUT MONEY. There is no public safety issue here, it is a monopoly which has been around our neck for so many years.
<
p>Safety??? Can someone help me understand how the other 49 states have stayed safe without police details? Can someone tell me how that cop sleeping in his car (a police car I might add) is keeping me safe? Count how many state police are manning the next construction site on the highway and do the math.
<
p>I give kudos to Deval for doing something about this but this watered down movement is not nearly enough. I also heard rumblings (somewhere, maybe TKK) about some ex-pols starting up a “Flagman” company so hold onto your wallets again.
<
p>And lastly can someone explain to me why a flagman would be paid so high an hourly rate? We are talking the lowest of lowly trained laborers to “hold a flag” “wave a flag” “put your hand up and say HALT”… This position should get paid minimum wage and THAT should have been part of the new regulations.
<
p>When will it stop? When will we all have had enough? Moving always seems to be the only option.
“The governor has shown a great deal of political courage in taking this step.”
<
p>Political courage is one of those terms that is getting thrown around a lot these days. PC is taking an action that risks your future effectiveness or electability. So, this small action described as a “great deal of political courage” is surely hyperbole.
<
p>If it isn’t hyperoble, then is it the police unions alone who must be feared (do they really control elections in this state?) or are they joined by others? If joined, by whom?
<
p>Seems to me that if the politicians must be fearful of police, then we all have more to fear than runaway pensions.
Sorry, David. Not sure what you’re asking.
<
p>If you’re asking if I have a suggestion on details, I offered in an earlier thread:
<
p>
<
p>People don’t want to end police details because they have something against the police. They want to end them because they are very expensive.
<
p>The current proposal legitimizes the safety claims. There should be statistics to demonstrate or refute whether those claims have merit, for example, the number of accidents in work areas. Such data would be more valuable if we could also determine the benefit of having a police detail on site (or conversely, how many accidents could be attributed to police detail who were not paying attention — fatigue from overtime?).
<
p>Was that your question, or was it something else?
It is my understanding that police pensions don’t include detail pay, nor overtime. This article in the Cape Cod Times supports my belief:
<
p>
The proposed regulations are verbose, but the plan boils down to the 3-tiered system.
<
p>I may be wrong, but it doesn’t look like this plan is going to save the state much of anything. Politically, it’s a good move for the Governor. He’s getting all kinds of kudos for trying. Few will remember the effects of the law enough to make a difference.
<
p>My police sources tell me that local unions are already negotiating roadwork into their contracts, so only weak police unions will miss out on traffic details.
<
p>Here are the tiers:
<
p>1. High Speed Roads. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Construction Zone Safety Plan shall require that Police Details be used in all Construction Zones located on High Speed Roads…. High Speed Roads are divided and undivided Public Roads with a legal speed limit greater than or equal to 45 miles per hour.
<
p>2.Low Speed Roads and Low Traffic High Speed Roads. Road Flaggers be used in all Construction Zones located on all Low Speed Roads and on all Low Traffic High Speed Roads….Low Traffic High Speed Roads. Low Traffic High Speed Roads are High Speed Roads with volumes of traffic less than a maximum of 4000 vehicles per day.
<
p>3. Low Speed Roads. Low Speed Roads are divided and undivided Public Roads with a legal speed limit less than 45 miles per hour.
<
p>I’m sure I missed some aspects of the regulations, but I tried to break it down to the nuts and bolts.
<
p>Mark
The proposed regs are here.
I mean, at some point, it’s up the municipalities to decide whether they want to keep paying for details, or to adopt something like the state’s 3-tiered system. If they choose to continue the status quo, that’s their call.
will lack the clout to buck their unions on it is what I hear. Small non-unionized forces may lose out.
<
p>The roads where I have seen traffic details fall into the first tier. There must be a percentage of projects that are not tier one at the state level. It will be interesting to see projections on money saved.
<
p>We have very little road construction in my town and what we have would probably be Tier 1, two, 2-lane state highways.
<
p>While I agree that money for state police to flag traffic is wasteful, the money local cops get is often the difference between a decent and lousy paying job. I don’t know which of my local cops has a Master’s Degree, but as of 2005, patrolmen were making in the 40’s. I’d rather see them get paid more for more meaningful work, but I also think our police and other workers deserve a decent wage and I think it’s our governments, local, state, and federal, that should set the standard.
<
p>Mark
tonight at a social occasion. I asked him about the regulations. He said, “It takes care of the state police. As soon as I saw, 45 m.p.h., I laughed.”
<
p>Gov. Patrick hasn’t taken a step forward in reigning in state police expenses; he’s created a cynical ploy to shut up his conservative critics.
<
p>Mark
nor do I understand why you seem so completely unwilling to give these regs a chance. Further, why do you see interest in this issue as limited to “conservative critics”? ‘Cause, newsflash, it’s not.
projections of savings. These can be calculated relatively easily, from last year’s road work.
<
p>I’ve been told by two Chiefs of Police that these regulations were designed not to harm the state police. To quote one, “I laughed when I saw the 45 m.p.h. speed limit.”
<
p>They will, however, effect local police working on state sites, guys who don’t make more than the Governor, and work in towns that don’t pay much.
<
p>That’s where my cynicism, and in my opinion, the governor’s opinion, comes in.
<
p>As for conservative critics, look at who’s praising the regulations in the Globe.
<
p>Most people may care about the waste, but the issue has little political traction outside Democratic ranks.
<
p>Mark
Bold change versus political expendiency, this one has it all, but political expediency seems to have won.
<
p>-Score one for cops. For sure, all repairs on major roads will have cops. Repairs on major roads of 49 states will not.
<
p>-Score one for the Governor. Regs are written, and soundbites all around, even though proof really is wanting: will prevailing wage approximate the $40 per hour a trooper would get? All you can really do is wait and see. It’s just too early to praise or criticize without some idea of how many dollars will be paid to flagman in subsequent years.
<
p>-Insider intrique. It’s all just a coincidence that James Jajuga, former Senator and former trooper, early voice to the Flagman movement is in the Flagman business.
<
p>I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and work was being done on Park Ave, on a Saturday. Cops, not flagmen, handled things.
<
p>If Park Avenue in New York City isn’t a major road, then I don’t know what is.
or name of his company or anything?
<
p>From what I can see, he’s the president of a Chamber of Commerce.
<
p>Mark
This is going to flop “Big Time” to much liability on the State and Municipality’s.
<
p>If the Flag person company is sued, do to any type of negligence all they have to do is file for Bankruptcy in my opinion. Then the State or the Municipality will be held liable and accountable, because the flag person company went Bankrupt.
<
p>Big settlements at the cost of the Taxpayers. The Governor could save a lot of money by reducing the State Vehicle take home roller coaster program. Plus trimming his $6,000,000 Office Budget, lead by example.
<
p>In my opinion once Municipality’s legal counsel’s review this plan they will stick with the status quo in my opinion. State Police and Municipal Police are indemnified Flag Persons are not. To much liability for the Sate or Municipality’s to gamble with in my opinion. They will opt out!!
<
p>Posting a bond helps hedge against the bankruptcy. Furthermore, even if the flag company filed for bankruptcy and even if the person sued the muni/state and even if they won, the amount of money that the muni/state is saving might be more than enough to cover the lawsuit.
<
p>So, it’s not clear so far as I can tell. Got data? What do the other 49 states do?
…of a little thing called sovereign immunity? You can’t sue the state, acting in their capacity as a sovereign (repairing roads falls under that category) unless they give you permission, and if permission is statutorily granted, awards are always capped. This issue is a silly cipher. Are all the other states crippled by these law suits? No, they are not.
… contracts include a mandatory insurance coverage check.
I’m thinking particularly at intersections, where many cars and/or many people are crossing? Seems like that’s a good place for a policemen where, as I supposed above, pedestrians are far more likely to obey a policeman than a flagman.
the threshold of 4,000 vehicles defines high traffic.
<
p>Is it a judgement call? Whoever is doing the construction has to submit a plan to a permitting authority.
<
p>Mark
aren’t mentioned. In fact, the way I’m reading it, it’s:
<
p>45 mpg+, 4,000 cars+: police.
Everything else: flagman.
<
p>No consideration for low speed high traffic where the issue is moving vehicles efficiently instead of safety. No consideration for pedestrian traffic as “traffic”.
<
p>Is there an option for a judgment call? Who’s judgment?
did you read the part about submitting a construction plan?
<
p>I didn’t, but such a decision may come under the authority that approaves these things.
<
p>Mark
The barricades portion of the regulations will be a welcome change. There’s really nothing more galling than seeing some Statie sitting in his parked cruiser behind 3 ft of concete at a “semi-permanent” highway construction site — sipping Dunkin Donuts coffee, listening to the radio, and collecing $40/hr.
conventional left/right politics it has been primarily the right wing, ie 96.9 talk radio promoting this no cops on details to save money meme. It is part of the Illuminati plan to destroy America.
<
p>Here in Mass the government used to regulate the auto insurance industry which made insurance choice in this state really bad. Even while Mitt was here the insurance company set up the scam operation called “Fairness for Good Drivers”. Well it had nothing to do with fairness all it had to do with was unleashing the more stellar performance of scamming insurance companies. Pay more for less insurance value, no doubt.
<
p>With no cops on details only leads to crappier thug like cops. It is sort of a Blackwater mercenary privatization of the police force.
Traditional left/right platforms surely blend together towards one corporate image.
It’s true that I did not get out of my car to converse with them, but none of the flaggers that I’ve seen working in other states such as New Hampshire seemed especially thug-like, and they all seemed perfeclty capable of handling the job.
<
p>Governor Patrick has taken an important first step on this issue, and it will be easier for towns and cities to follow and to expand this initiative.