I don't understand why this keeps coming up?

The amount they can save by not building the big dig, not having Iraq war, and closing off certain toll stations on the Masspike can save even more, but these officials would rather pick on the police.

Police details is what makes Massachusetts roads so safe. As many people know, there are a lot of MASSHOLES in Massachusetts, and having a police cruiser, and a police officer, definitely helps slow traffic, making it less dangerous for the workers.

In Singapore, I've seen untrained construction workers try to control traffic, Though the Singapore drivers are much more tamed, it is very likely to see drivers ignore these road workers and cause a massive traffic jam or accident.

Directing traffic is not as easy as it seems. Even in a bright orange vest, I personally have many close encounters with cars almost hitting me while I'm helping with traffic control at an accident scene.

I've known officers that were killed on traffic details while trying to save the lives of the workers.

In general, most police officers in are dedicated to their job to serve the public and are serious about performing their duty to protect the workers at their work sites. I would never assume such dedication from a flagman, which most of them are working as some form of part-time job.

There are not much accidents, at these Massachusetts worksites with an officer on detail and we should keep it that way. I've also known of officers stopping crime while on detail and the presence of these officers definitely deter crime.

I would also like to add that the police presence is often a good one as many drivers who do not know a better way to go around the work site has an officer to direct them, rather than driving through against traffic as they do not trust the part-time flag man.

What is wrong with having police officer on work details? If they work more (double shifts) why should they not be paid more?

There are already laws in place to prevent officers from working more than 90 hours a week, and the department can also use detail assignments as a form of incentive or punishment, as poorly performing officers may not be allowed extra details.

It is a complex system and it works, just because the budget is broken, and many of the cities funds are cut, the police detail system should not be dismissed. Anyway, the newspapers and officials are misleading people as the details are usually paid by private companies, and even if they do not use police officers, why should they charge any less?

--Iron Bowl

Officials punt on police details

Political will once again fades; Unions resist shift to flagmen

By Matt Viser, Globe Staff | May 25, 2008

Governor Deval Patrick and the state's top legislative leaders stood united in March and made a bold proclamation: They would use their combined political muscle to take on powerful police unions and their sacred perk - construction details.

They grabbed headlines and plenty of airtime as they touted the $100 million the state could save by replacing police officers at low-risk construction sites with civilians in bright vests with flags.

Two months later, political will has faded.

Patrick was the first to publicly back off the tough stance when, just a week after the highly orchestrated news conference, the governor said on WTKK-FM's monthly "Ask the Governor" radio show, "The more I think about it, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down."

Confronted with a withering lobbying blitz by police officers, meanwhile, key lawmakers inserted legislative language in a transportation bill that would protect municipal union contracts and, with those contracts, the construction details that boost police salaries by thousands of dollars.

The result?

"This thing has been hobbled," said David G. Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank at Suffolk University. "The politicians seem to be totally unwilling to take this issue on in a serious way."

The performance by the state's politicians - quickly retreating from a plan that is popular with fiscal watchdogs and reformers - once again demonstrates the political might of police unions and the inability of elected leaders to make significant changes in a practice embedded in police contracts across the state.

It is a not a retreat the officials are eager to discuss. Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

Kyle Sullivan, Patrick spokesman, said the governor, who in November first proposed the idea for detail reforms, "has been consistent since then in his desire to address this issue in a manner that is fiscally responsible and places public safety first."

The administration is scheduled to release a set of draft regulations in the next two weeks - and at a minimum is expected to include a recommendation that flaggers replace police at a limited number of state road and bridge construction zones where it can be done safely.

A final version of the recommendations is expected to be produced by mid-July and sent back to the Legislature for further debate. If adopted, it would mark the first time flaggers have appeared on state roads.

But critics said the mandatory union contract protections approved by the House and Senate have doomed much of the reforms, almost ensuring they will have little impact on municipal police on local roads.

They say Massachusetts will remain the only state that uses police officers, rather than less-expensive flaggers, on almost all work sites.

"Given the limitations of the legislation, it can't be anything dramatic," said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "By tossing it to the local level, they've essentially passed the buck."

Although there are no statewide regulations requiring the use of police details for state or local road projects or utility jobs, state and local officials have used them for decades at construction sites anyway, in deference to politically powerful unions.

Police have argued that the presence of a cruiser and a uniformed officer slows traffic and provides the best protection for the public and for road workers.

"There are some serious safety issues if we go from police officers to flagmen," Richard Brown, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts, said last week at a public hearing on the issue. "I've almost been killed more working details than working as a police officer."

Municipalities would save $36.5 million to $66.5 million a year by replacing most police details with less expensive flaggers, according to a 2004 study by the Beacon Hill Institute. The study estimated that cities and towns spent $93.3 million in police details in 2003.

In 1992, Governor William F. Weld proposed legislation to replace police details with civilian flaggers. After 800 police officers picketed the State House, Weld gave up and few have tried to revive the issue.

That appeared to change in March, when the state's top politicians appeared together in the Senate Reading Room to unveil a broad transportation reform package, which included streamlining construction projects, cracking down on retirement and pension plans at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and changing police details.

"We are going to roll up our sleeves," said DiMasi.

"This is a necessary step," said Murray.

"This is one of a host of areas where the Senate president, the speaker, and I . . . are working very closely in partnership," Patrick said.

It was a striking announcement from the state's top Democrats, who typically count public safety unions among their key political allies.

But they didn't release details of how they would do it, and then just a week later, Patrick indicated it wasn't going to be so easy.

"It feels simple," the governor said on the radio show, "but there are public safety issues, and that has to come first."

Police union officials were swarming the hallways of the State House.

Local police officers were calling legislators on their cellphones - even showing up at their homes - pleading with them to soften the initiative.

"I now understand why reform sometimes doesn't rise to the surface," said Senator Steven A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat who was chief sponsor of the legislation and remains optimistic that it will bring about reforms. "It was the most difficult two weeks I've had in the Legislature."

It is still unclear how the state will encourage cities and towns to follow voluntary guidelines, although one idea is to tie state transportation funding to whether a municipality adopts the state recommendations.

With the protections for existing union contracts, however, local officials do not expect much change under a voluntary system.

"There ultimately will need to be change so that communities won't have to negotiate changes to use civilian flaggers," said Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. "Otherwise, what happens is the unions ask for other concessions like pay increases or additional benefits in exchange."

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.