Police details
Posted by: jimfior02 on: January 19, 2008
There has been a good deal of comment in the newspapers lately about
police details. Our police chief has been the subject of a good deal of criticism, most of it unjustified. I thought I would write and start a discussion about it.
Contrary to popular belief, no Massachusetts law, at least no law that we can find, requires that the police provide roadside details. In the 49 other States, roadside details are sometimes provide provided by police, and often by civilians known as flagmen. Here are some details:
What are police details?
You know what they are. These are the police you see by the road (hopefully) directing traffic while work is being done on the roadway. Police details are done if a road is being paved, or if construction work is being done that affects the roadway.
There are many times when it is perfectly legitimate to have a police officer directing traffic while construction work is being done. There are other times when we all scratch our heads and say, why is an officer required here?
Who pays for police details?
The short answer is, you do. Most of the details, most of the time, are paid for by the utility companies that are doing the work. They add it to your bill.
But the State and local governments do roadway work all the time, and in those instances, the government (that’s you) pays for the roadway details. The city of Haverhill paid only a small amount of money for roadwork last year, about $20,000. However, we have some major projects scheduled next year, and we estimate we are going to spend $80-$100,000 next year of your money on police details.
Why don’t we use flagmen here?
The short answer is, it isn’t that easy. Although no State law prevents it, nearly every city and the State have collective bargaining agreements with their local unions that require that police do the details, not civilians. Even when it is not in the agreement, the collective bargaining laws require that if work that is traditionally done by a group covered by a collective bargaining contract, you must first bargain over that. How likely do you think it is that the police union is going to agree to give this up?
It will probably take a State law to bring in flagmen. That State law would have to say that notwithstanding any collective bargaining agreement, a city or the State could use flagmen to direct traffic at roadsides.
Would a community save money if you they used flagmen?
That isn’t as clear as might think. The Massachusetts prevailing wage law requires that if you hire private people to do public work, you have to pay them what is called the “prevailing wage.” The prevailing wage is a the equivalent wage to what the job would be if it were unionized.
I have no idea what the prevailing wage is for flagmen, or even if the the prevailing wage law applies here, but it is definitely something that has to be considered. The prevailing wage is set by a committee of business people and unions, municipal leaders are not at the table when the prevailing wage is decided. The prevailing wage for lawn mowing is set at $43 an hour, which seems outrageous to me. (We all know we can get people to mow our lawns much cheaper than that.)
What is we can’t get enough police to do the details?
Here is where the police can not have it both ways. In many communities, there simply are not enough police to do the details. Why can’t a community use flagmen here? The communities instead resort to hiring retired police officers, axillary police, reserve police, police from other communities, sheriff’s officers, and, sometimes, fire fighters.
All of these folks, respectfully, are not police. The argument often given by the police unions that it is critical to have police officers by the side of the road quickly goes out the window when you see non police such as firefighters doing the details.
How can Haverhill save money on details?
This is the critical issue to me, as Mayor. The easiest answer is, don’t have details. Details are not required every single time you dig up the roadway, it is in the discretion of the project manager and the police chief when details are needed. We are looking into when we need details, and when we can do without them.
What are your thoughts?
13 Responses to "Police details"
January 22, 2008 at 1:00 am
Well, I hate to disagree with myself, but, obviously most of the time you need to have details. If there are construction jobs where details are not needed then we try to do without them, and we do that now. We are going to take a look at all the city jobs where details are required and see if we can do a better job at managing this.
Jim
January 22, 2008 at 1:20 am
Does the requirement for Police Details supercede the actual day-to-day work of an Officer? What I mean is, are we taking officers off their patrols to do details? I hope the answer is no, But if it’s yes,I’d rather hire the flagmen and keep those officers out on their assigned patrols.
January 22, 2008 at 1:24 am
No, it is the other way around, your regular duties come first, and officers are sometimes ordered to do their regular duties. Not only do regular duties come first, overtime comes first, one of the reasons that we sometimes can not get enough police to do details.
Every police officer understands that the regular public duties come before details.
Jim
January 22, 2008 at 1:51 am
That’s a very important point and one which provides a stong argument to have Police officers only on details and makes me want to change my mind on flagmen doing details.
It would be reasonable to think that the whole point of details is to provide public safety on work projects that maintain our infrastructure. To that point, in the event that a real emergency does occur at the site of a work project, who do I want to respond; a flagmen who may not be equipped or trained to to handle the situation, or a Police Officer who knows how to respond in an emergency and is authorized to do so?
All it takes is one time for someone to get hurt or killed on a detail where a flagmen is used instead of a Police office, and then everyone will change their tune and will be looking for someone to sue… It’s sad to say, but that’s typically how it plays out.
January 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I really don’t think police are needed for detail work. They are usually found looking at the work being done. Very rarely are they actually directing traffic. I’d rather have flagmen performing this task and save the police for actual police work. We need all the police on duty that we can get. As far as liability goes, I really think if there were serious injury, it is not the policeman’s responsiblility. Emergency personnel would be immediately summoned on the scene.
January 23, 2008 at 12:16 am
How about hiring a few more policemen? That might cut down on the need for overtime, which in turn might make policemen more available for detail work.
January 23, 2008 at 4:13 am
As I said in a earlier post, Hire more officers, man the details with the on-duty officers. Charge the same as the law allows for a detail officer. The city is still ahead of the game. And I agree with Samsvick, hiring more officers will also cut back on the need for over-time. Certainly the over-time pay hurts the city as well.
January 27, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The only advantage in having a police officer (retired or not)over a flagman @ a detail is that the police officer would never be held accountable if problems were to occur because they know how to dance around the letter of the law.
How did we as a society exist prior to enactment of the mandatory hiring of police for detail work?
February 17, 2008 at 3:46 am
What is the actual reason for police details? Why is there suppossedly an increased risk of crime at construction sites? That is the job of police officers, to prevent and/or respond to crime right? I also find it hard to believe theres an increased risk of personal injury at construction sites, seeing as how they’re surrounded by big loud trucks with lights and yellow caution tape. Theres a much more increased risk of personal injury when driving over potholes, and those are all over the city, with no lights shining on them, or yellow caution tape. Why don’t we have police details at all potholes throughout the city? Theres no argument to justify the need for police officers to sit at construction sites.
April 8, 2008 at 11:56 am
Ultimately you have to actually do the job to accurately comment on it. First I must say I am tired of hearing the “cup of coffee” argument. If we put a highway next to each & every persons office & let every person who drove by look into your office for that moment of time what would the feedback be? While at work do you ever have a cup of coffee or bottle of juice? While at work do you ever get a call on your cell from your spouse or child? While at work do you ever crack a smile or share a joke with a co-worker?
The fact is a police officer shows up for a details. They could be there a few hours or an entire day. There are no set hours. You are done with the person who hired you tells you you can leave. I have worked 2-hour details & 18-hour details. Most times you do not eat & have no place to go the bathroom. We’ve had instances were we run off into the woods for a moment & people call the PD letting them know there was a cop relieving himself in the woods.
Basically what I am trying to say is if every citizen drove by your office all day long what comments would they have? If you were dinking a cup of coffee while a person drove by does that mean the only thing you do all day is drink coffee? If you were laughing with another person on your job site does that mean the only thing you do is laugh all day? If you kid called to say what time they need to be picked up would that mean all you do is talk on the cell all day? I am sure you can appreciate my point.
Next is most of you do not realize we deal with aggrevated motorists all day that might already be running late for work when they run into a construction delay or a detour. They yell, scream, insult, & often we are asked if the construction crews can move all their equipment to allow the person through.
I have only been a police officer a short time & have already helped a man who collapsed while working on the job. I was the only one who noticed & got him away from the equipment he was actually working on at the time. We had EMS there in moments & they were able to get right through as we cleared the roads along the way for them prior to their leaving the station. He & his wife came back to thank us all & thankfully he was ok.
We constantly get “be on the lookouts” while on roadjobs. Often times in our small town there are two or three officers on during the day. There may be another 1/2 dozen in the community being employed by companies like verizon, comcast, national grid, or any host of private companies which ultimately make up the bulk of details. The cities and town charge these company 10 percent more then they pay us & on small budgets it makes a big difference for us.
As for the hourly rate . . . how much does the plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc charge you when you use their services? we operate for anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 with a ton of responsibility opening ourselves up to danger, liability, we all get sued, & public scrunity. Keep in mind when on a detail we get nothing but the money. it does not factor into any pension, benefits, etc. If you’re based as a entry level patrolmen is 40k but you made 60k because you worked a ton of details your pension would be based on 40k, not 60k so it is of no additional cost to the tax payer.
Part of the problem is most people’s dealings with the police is getting a ticket which makes many form their opinions based on “that asshole cop” that gave me a ticket.
We have people call complaining people are speeding in their neighborhoods & are concerend for the safely of the kids at play. We setup speeds traps & catch the very people that call. If we write them they are totally pissed. Some days the jobs is incredibly rewarding. Other days it is the most thankless job you can imagine.
Anyway, I am getting off topic but we from a money standpoint details allow a cop to supplement an otherwise less then great salary. Most details are paid by private industry. The cities & towns make 10% from every detail hour work. The details allow cops who are not on the city/town payroll to be on the streets & available if needed. Most cops will tell you some of their most dangerous times came while on paid detail. We help with motor vehicles accidents, medicals, catching fleeing criminals, etc.
My sargeant have been at gunpoint twice with both being on detail (one was a bank robber & another an old woman who was unstable who pulled a gun on the crew for being in front of her house.
You never know what is going to happen. truthfully before I actually did the job i though the detail money was an easy gig & then I did it.
Please let me know your thought.
tim
April 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Gov Patrick,
As a police officer myself I am extremely dissapointed in your looking to reduce spending at the cost of local & state Police departments. I thought one of your early campaign goals was more police on the street. This is certainly not a move in that direction. Cities & Town earn 10% for every detail hour a police officer works. That 10% if quite important to local budgets & overwhelmingly paid by private industry. It also allows us to have extra eyes & ears on the road in the event at no cost in my cases to the tax payer. If you ask, many cops will tell you some of the bigger busts & scariest moments came while on detail. It is absolutely horrible that you have made public servants who risk their lives for meager base salaries into the negative focus of front page news. I am extremely disappointed to say the least.
If we are overspending we should look toward all the free money given away to able-bodied people that choose not to work, not a police officer working the equivalent of 2 full-time jobs to provide for their families.
Thank you for your time.
April 8, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Thank you for the post. Your post is directed to Governor Patrick. He is unlikely to read your very well written post. You may want to write to him at:
The Honorable Governor Deval Patrick
State House 3′d Floor
Boston, MA 02133
Thank you, again, for writing.
Jim Fiorentini, Mayor
Leave a Reply
Search
- None
- followtherules: Mayor why don't you just follow the rules that you agreed to and signed??? Negotiate in good faith and resolve the problem the right way. Please pleas
- chippy2: While I sympathize with city employees with the rise in expenses, the same problem exsists throughout the community. As a retiree, living solely on S
- bobmc: Reenie, all our fire fighters are union. We belong to a local with our own E-board and bargaining committee. They get paid nothing. There is a very sm
Categories
- Budget deficit (9)
- Take home cars (1)
- Union time (1)
- Casino gambling (2)
- Federal stimulus package (1)
- Fire safety (1)
- Introduction (1)
- performance measures (1)
- Police details (3)
- Roofs (1)
- Uncategorized (6)
January 22, 2008 at 12:43 am
Absolutely, the simplest answer is “don’t have police details”. Police details are one of the biggest government embarassments and wastes of money in all of Massachusetts. There definitely needs to be a better way to handle roadway construction. It’s good to see you realize the issue!