Left In Lowell

Oh Ye of Little Faith!

12 Responses to “Oh Ye of Little Faith!”

1. Magnolia Says:
   August 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

   That pension bill would have benefitted my husband to the whopping tune $10 per month folks. Not exactly a windfall. But considering the cost of food these days, it would have helped.

2. bobo Says:
   August 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

   WCVB and The Boston Globe both have reported today that the flagger change essentially will have minimal, if any impact, as it does not apply to local roads which make up 90% of these details and will not affect collective bargaining agreements.

   In addition the flaggers will apparently be hired as state workers at $20 per hour (according to WCVB). Factor in pensions, benefits healthcare, etc. Guess what? you are probably better off paying the cops OT. Some savings! I guess you can file this under watch what you wish for.

   If you think this will trickle down I remind you….all politics is local.

3. Lynne Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 6:57 am

   bobo: $20/hour is nothing compared to what an OT cop makes doing this. Trust me, even with bennies and the like, we’ll save money. And since this is part of a construction job (yes, even though it’s standing around with a flag), would you want your flagger making 75% less than a construction worker whom he’s working next to? How do you expect someone whose doing flagging to feed their family on a salary that’s at, say, $13/hour? I used to make $13/hour, and at the time I lived in cheaper-cost-of-living NH. It didn’t add up to much. In most of MA, where the cost of living is higher, it amounts to even less.

   And municipalities have the right to negotiate with unions on their own. Patrick can’t wave a magic wand with this regulatory change - not in his power, from what I understand. However, he is starting the ball rolling, and look - it sets precedent. That’s important. The next time a city or town is facing a budget shortfall (which for the foreseeable future is every time budget season comes around, frankly) a city or town manager or council can say to the union, look it’s get rid of the OT flagging, or cut jobs. Let us save money on the flagging and we can keep a couple patrolmen on. It gives the towns and cities some more leverage.

   To be honest, I think over the next five years you will see a piecemeal implementation of this on the local level. For instance, do you think Bernie Lynch is going to let a union intimidate him? He’s a tough negotiator. If he sees that this is a desirable outcome, he’ll present it. Towns like ours might very well see this happen. Maybe not all towns, but as it becomes more common it might work its way even into the more difficult situations.

   No one said it was finished. It’s a start.

4. Lynne Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 6:59 am

   Magnolia: which is why I would have supported Patrick’s amendment. Look, these employees took these jobs with the understanding there’d be fair pensions. Just because people think it’s unfair that the public sector even gets pensions, doesn’t mean it’s fair to renege on promises made to previous employees. (And just because we let the private sector get away with it - GM et al - doesn’t mean it’s fair or right to do so.)

   I don’t understand why a fair cost-of-living increase isn’t built into these things, in the first place, especially for the average salary.

5. Paul@01852 Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am

   Lynne, I think you misunderstand the economics of paid details. I believe that the contractor is actually paying the $40/hr. In some cases the city/town may directly pay the officers and then bill the contractors (in which case I believe there may even be an additional “service charge” added on). On the other hand what Gov. Patrick’s precedent does is it forearms the contractors with “ammunition.” When a city/town forces them to use a paid detail they can reply “If it’s safe to use a flagman for a state project, why isn’t it also safe to use a flagman on local streets with the same criteria?” This (theorhetically) would lower the cost of the project. If the project was on behalf of the municipality those cost savings can then be passed on to taxpayers(again “theorhetically”!) I persoanally don’t believe that anyone will actually see any real savings but at least we won’t have to listen to the stories about patrolmen who make more (sometimes *much* more) than the chief or mayor!

6. Mr. Lynne Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am

   Contractors include the cost of paying for details in their cost estimates typically. The actual moving around of the money could happen in a variety of ways, depending on the contract structure. Actual real savings will really be based on the comparative rates of civil vs. private flaggers. Of course when this comparison is made, it’d have to include the overhead and fee, which I’m not sure is analagously built into the detail rates as they get charged. The question I have is when a dispute comes up as to the necessity of a detail on a job, how does that get resolved? My experience is that if a safety agency (the police) bring up an issue, their judgment typically rules.

7. Josh Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

   State owned roads under 45 mph? I think that covers something like under 5% of the roads in the state.

   It’s a worthless measure to appease proponents and police unions. In reality, it does nothing but move the issue off the radar.

   The status quo lives on!

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

   According to Sen Baddour via the Eagle Tribune, the new rules are:

   Civilian flagmen would be appropriate on any road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or less.

   If the road is 45 mph or greater, but is traveled by less than 4,000 cars a day, flagmen could still be used.

   Before any construction is done on a project, there will be a meeting between the awarding authority — state or municipality — and all other parties to determine what types of details are needed.

   The awarding authority will make the final decision on whether flagmen or police details are used.

9. Lynne Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am

   Like today, I was on Chelmsford St and was diverted into the Lincoln school turnaround to go around the digging up of the street (presumably for the sewer-drainage separation?). Real low speeds. We did not need to be spending $75/hour to direct traffic there. It did not necessitate the use of a policeman, who could be off doing more important work elsewhere. (And we keep complaining we have a damned police shortage. Come on people!)

   To those worried that $20/hour flaggers will cost just as much (ridiculous anyway): keep in mind that they would NOT be state employees anyway. The construction firms would likely be the ones hiring, they’d be private sector employees.

10. Thom B Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    The speed clause and traffic clause will rule out the majority of roads. It’s kinda like a new rule that is effective every third wednesday in odd numbered mothhs with an r in them.

11. Anonymous Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Public sector employees should not get pensions?

12. Always Right in Lowell Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Lynne: I was at the same spot on Lincoln friday at 5PM and the traffice was moving slowly but orderly without the help of the police detail who was over in the side street next to the gas station talking to a guy in a car. They are so arrogant that they don’t even care about public perception.

Leave a Reply