EagleTribune.com : Blogs : The Soapbox

I can't believe I'm about to write this, but here goes: I agree with you, Taylor.

I know many police officers and they all do an outstanding job, and I don't blame them for wanting to make more money. They have families to take care of. But claims that traffic detail OT is all about public safety is a crock.

By the way, it was good to catch up with you yesterday.

Once again, you've hit the nail on the head, Mr. Amerding. This is similar to the Boston firefighters unions hypocrasy over the drug testing issue.

Not only is the money good, but my relative who is in law enforcement has had the great good fortune and pleasure to be pinned against a wall and another car while directing traffic at a detail by a motorist who wouldn't even stop for a police officer. I say, send out the lay people to get killed in traffic! Save an officer.

Perhaps the the police bashers (this means you Taylor) might consider paying police officers a competive wage to begin with. This way they may support their families without spending hour after hour (on and after their 1st 40 hrs) directing traffic.

The average police officer is not touching 100k as much as Taylor Amerding and every one else who is in the business of selling newspapers would like you to think. Those that do are spending any and all of their off time in a courthouse or directing traffic. 80, 90, 100 hours a week! Please, it's not as glamourous as some might think!

Taylor, I'm still waiting for that pro labor piece!

I agree 100% with this piece. Mass is the only state to use police on road details. If you ask them what they are doing, the answer is protecting the workers not directing traffic. Well if they are not there for traffic we sure do not need them. There are even times when there are more police detail on a job than workers doing the work. Maybe the answer is to pay them $10.00 per hour. Then let's see how many want to work the details. Flagmen can do the job just as well as an officer for less cost and some one will get a job. Then police can do the job they were trained to do.

I have no problem cutting police traffic details. However, I do feel there are some traffic details where a police officer is needed, such as a major route or highway.
And I don't mean when the "community service" crews are cleaning the roadways. I'm talking about lane closures and the like when there is major road construction or improvements.
I live on a short, dead end street. Approximately a year ago, the city was doing some minor roadwork at the opposite end of the street at the small intersection. Keep in mind, this was an intersection with another small sidestreet, not a major roadway. And what do I see? You guessed it, a police officer "directing" traffic. Believe me, if you knew where I lived, you would be appalled too. I mean really, what EXACTLY was the purpose of placing an officer there? The majority of traffic we get in our area are the residents, and there aren't too many of them that actually drive anymore....

Ok, it is about the money. I would not be able to afford my house without details to supplement my base pay. But to say it has nothing to do with safety is wrong.
I've had driver's drive around road blocks (cones, saw horses, barrels, signs that say "Road Closed", POLICE CARS WITH BLUE LIGHTS FLASHING, it doesn't matter what's in the way) and come close to hitting not only me but the work crews. Their reasons range from "I didn't see the sign" (which they had to go way out of their way to drive around) to "this is the only way I know." On some occasions the driver is an illegal alien who can't speak or read english. It happens a lot more than you would think. I can cite or arrest those drivers if necessary, a flagman can't. I've driven up in New Hampshire (where I have seen police deatils, by the way) and watched as flagman lose control because people totally ignore them.
My department has also made numerous arrests (stolen cars, unlicensed operators, fleeing felons...) and I personnally have responded to serious medical incidents and burglar alarms while standing on a detail. I'm pretty sure that the elderly woman who fell and split her head open was happy that I was right outside her front door when it happened. The Boston Sunday Globe (4/13/08) had an article about two boston police officers standing on a detail who heard a woman screaming for help. They responded and arrested her boyfriend who was beating her. Would her neighbors have called, maybe, but I would not count on it. In my experience, people generally think that someone else will call, so they don't. Depending on the neighborhood, people may be afraid to call the police.
I also find it funny to hear what a huge savings getting rid of police deatils is going to be. First, did you know that cities make money off police details? That's right, cities charge an additional 10% on top of the detail rate. My city made $100,000 from the details worked by just the 45 officers who made the paper. Not bad. That's why the Mayor is always trying to raise the detail rate instead of giving raises in base pay. Flagman making $10 an hour? Though I find it hard to believe they would be paid that low we'll use that number. Don't forget you still have to factor in health insurance and other benefits and I'm sure there are going to be administrative fees for the Flagman Company (The have to make money too, right?). I would argue that any savings would be very minimal. And in regard to $10; MA is a prevailing wage state and I've been told (I'll admit I don't know if this is a fact) that these flagman would be paid closer to $35 an hour. With benefits and admin fees included, there would definately be no savings and the cities would lose money.
In response to Bilge Rat, as you've explained that detail situation on the dead end street, I would agree with you. But I can say for a fact that generally we wouldn't make a company hire a detail officer in that situation, sometimes the company wants us there and hires us anyway.
In closing, I'll admit, I'm biased. I need the extra money that details provide. But for you to say trafiic and work crew safety is not an issue, that's just not true. Stand by a detail one day (the whole 8 hours on your feet like us) and you will see what we see.

The cost of details is passed down to the consumers, be it through a higher cost of goods, additional fees, or increased utility rates. Someone has to pay, and it sure isn't going to be the utilities, construction companies, etc.

Aren't we the only state that continues to use police details? Are our infrastructure needs that much different from the rest of the nation to warrant police details? I don't believe so. To think otherwise would be elitist and unrealistic. The facts are there, flagmen are the answer.

However, I have no problem with police officers and firemen expecting a decent working salary. But it should be just that, a "working" salary. I would rather see police officers on bikes or walking a beat, interacting with the public, and being available to the general citizenry than babysitting a work crew.

Regarding the women who were helped by police officers on a local detail......
If the officers were walking a good, old fashioned beat, they may have been there to help these individuals anyways. Also, couldn't an argument be made that by helping these women you put the workers on the detail at risk by abandoning them to the motorists?

There can be no excuse for the waste of taxpayer
dollars going towards this...Massachusetts is crazy anyway -
Minnesota & other states assign laypeople to road detail
at huge savings...the police these days (due to a ton of publicity about drug dealing, spousal abuse, substance abuse, etc. — the list goes on and on — just do not have credibilty....feeding at the public trough in these hard times doesn't help their image...and trying to cast it in the light of 'public service' is so disingenuous - those police unions - ugh! When are taxpayers going to wise up & push back? We are so DUMB!

The police these days have lost credibility due to "drug dealing, spousal abuse, and substance abuse"? Cherub, I'll agree with you on your last point, some of you are dumb!