Nation’s First Police Department • Established 1854
Volume 38, Number 5 • September/October 2008
PAXCENTURION Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. Boston Emergency Medical Technicians
PAX EXCLUSIVE Patrick Administration fudges flagman figures
Prevailing wage rate decreases for only one category (flagman) in order to provide statistical cover By Jim Carnell, Pax Editor n order to provide contrived statistical “evidence” of cost savings for using flagmen instead of police details, representatives of the Patrick administration decreased one classification – that of flagman – in the existing prevailing wage charts while virtually all others increased.
I
“In reviewing this cost report it is important to note that several factors, which may reduce the overall cost savings for the use of alternative personnel, could not be accurately quantified. These factors include flagger training and certification, overtime costs, additional insurance requirements, and worker’s compensation. These factors will be documented in the one year cost impact analysis.” – Directly from the “Road flagger and police detail: cost report and analysis,” issued from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works on September 9th, 2008. The pay charts, (on pages 6 & 7 and highlighted) which were obtained by the BPPA, clearly show that the prevailing wage chart in existence as of “May 31st, (continued on page A6)
From the President:
O
Thomas J. Nee
I’m Mad – Not Crazy!
n November 4th every citizen in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be asked to vote on a ballot proposal better known as Question #1. The proposal comes from the Coalition for Small Government, led by one time Libertarian Party candidate for Massachusetts Governor, Carla Howell. Question #1as proposed and if successful will phase out the current income tax in Massachusetts by cutting it from its current 5.3 percent to 2.65 percent in 2009 and subsequently eliminate the Massachusetts Income Tax all together in the year 2010. A similar initiative was advanced by a similar social group who operated under a different name during the state election cycle in 2002. In 2002, sometimes called the post 9/11 era, the country and more importantly the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts were in a similar situation. The economy was a wreck and we were then, as now, in the grips of a recession. Contrasting that time period of 2002 to now, you will remember a
Seemingly that period of trust and confidence is long behind us for many reasons. During the campaign of 2002, the identical question as pro-
Your job security and quality of life are a central part of this debate. Please do not think or live in the moment, now is a very important time to make sure you vote your future. This is not reform, it is stupid, reckless and dangerous. Protect your interests and your future by voting “NO” on Question #1. great sense of American pride as we launched a military campaign in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq in the war on terror. There was a lot of trust and confidence in our government.
posed in 2008 (Question #1) received little or no attention in the media, little or no public interest as a feature piece in the election season, little or no at(continued on page A2)
Globe police detail story (9/22) exposes relationship between media/politics By Jim Carnell, Editor, Pax Centurion he most recent, pre-planned, antipolice detail article planted on the front page of the Boston Globe (9/22/ 08) clearly exposes the consort-like relationship which exists between the major media and politicians. In this article, Globe reporter Matt Viser composed a press release for Governor Deval Patrick’s office (“Unions lose on police details”) which represents that newly-promulgated state regulations will trump-card existing collective bargaining agreements between cities and towns regarding the use of police details versus civilian flagmen on state-sponsored construction projects. Naturally, the story claims “taxpayer cost savings” while failing to report that the existing, state-mandated, prevailing-
T
wage category for “flaggers and signalers” ($35. per hour) is virtually the same as the detail rate for Boston police officers ($33.-$37., depending on location).Viser’s press release also fails to mention that while the Boston police detail rate is fixed, the prevailing wage rate for flaggers does not even begin to include items such as overtime, night, weekend and other specialty rates or other related costs such as insurance, liability, and flag-
man-company profit margins. (See attached copy of Reader’s Digest article from June, 1993, (REPEAT- June 1993) citing Debra J. Saunders writing in the San Francisco Chronicle in which flagman wages were as high as $41.73 an hour –fifteen years ago!on weekends). But facts and figures are irrelevant to the anti-police detail foes who have co-mingled their powerful resources to (continued on page A9)
The advertisers of the Pax Centurion do not necessarily endorse the opinions of the Pax Centurion/Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. The advertisers are in support of the BPPA Scholarship Fund and every patrolmen who risks his or her life to protect and serve the community.
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. 9-11 Shetland Street Boston, Massachusetts 02119
PRST. STD. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 2226 Worcester, MA