The Globe reports how Boston police officers allegedly threatened to arrest a civilian flagger in South Boston, after which the state replaced the worker with a BPD officer. Illustrated with a photo of the replacement police officer intently staring at his cell phone.
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
This sounds an awful lot like
By anon
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 9:43am
This sounds an awful lot like racketeering.
And harassment... again
By fenwayguy
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 3:36pm
A beef with the DOT is no excuse to physically threaten the flagger. It just blows my mind that some unionized public employees insist on acting like 12-year olds when they don't get their way. Such demonstrations of petulance and disrespect don't help their public standing. Nor does loafing around a construction site with your head up your cell phone while the privately-paid flagger busts her hump getting the job done. Really, these folks are looking shameless, lazy and above all greedy, on our dime.
Speaking of cell phones, what's the supposed justification for uniformed police to carry them on the job? Are the department-issued communications systems not adequate to a patrol officer's needs?
Cops: screw the law, we are the law
By deselby
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 9:49am
If civilian flaggers are allowed by law, it's up to the construction manager to decide. The cops threatening to arrest the flagger is simple corruption - "rent seeking." Third world style.
the term you're searching for is "color of law"
By anon
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 9:59am
Look it up.
Grew up with civilian flaggers
By Kaz
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 10:00am
For as long as I can remember, MD has had civilian flaggers. We survived without construction zones turning into Mad Max affairs the likes of which these cops describe in order to justify their "need" to be on the scene to make arrests.
Construction zones aren't mini-compliance checkpoints and most cops who end up on these jobs let the cones handle their traffic control 90% of the time. Other times, I've had them screw up the intersection so badly because they aren't willing to compromise their original idea on how to direct the traffic in the face of mounting traffic in a particular direction or because they're still trying to follow the traffic lights...but the construction means letting one of the two streets have a much longer through time than normal.
Also, there's nothing they learn at the academy that makes it better for them over a trained construction worker on how to move traffic.
To Protect and Serve...
By escapedfromeastie
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 10:15am
and sometimes act as a glorified traffic light...
and other times do things that would typically be considered part of organized crime.
flashing arrows
By Katia
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 10:56am
Not only did we have civilian flaggers where I grew up ... sometimes we didn't have them at all! Just great big flashing arrows! Anarchy!
Detail work
By c1josh
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 10:58am
I call the local PD when I pass a "Law Enforcement Officer" deep in conversation with a backhoe operator with his back turned to traffic.
More often than not they are staring intently at the work being done as if the contractor had hired another manager.
Seriously?
By Molly
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 1:46pm
from the article: “We know the streets,’’ Boston Police Superintendent William Evans said in an interview. “We can handle vehicles coming out at a rapid pace."
Remember a while ago when the Tobin was closed one Sunday for a movie? I made the mistake of not being aware of that and was trying to get onto 93 on the ramp next to the hotel/Coldstone Creamery/whatever else complex.
Five lanes of traffic from three directions, all trying to get onto a one-lane ramp, and the detail cop didn't look up from his cell phone for ten minutes. I'm surprised there wasn't an accident; I nearly got into three different ones myself.
if they "know the streets",
By tape
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 2:56pm
if they "know the streets", then explain this absurd statement:
"Thomas Nee, who heads the patrol officers union and came to the intersection himself, said he was livid that the state directed a civilian to stand on a street that leads to a hospital, Boston Medical Center."
I'll give you a dollar if you can give a convincing argument that the intersection of W 4th and A "leads" to Boston Medical Center. (It doesn't.)
Hey, that's a real nice flag youse have there.
By East Cambridge
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 2:53pm
It would be terrible shame if somet'ing were to happen to it.
Where are Menino and the City Council on this?
By Dan Farnkoff
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 5:25pm
If the City has decided not to use civilian flaggers, that's fine, but we can't have police just making and/or breaking laws to protect their overtime. Sounds like some clarification from his honor is in order.
The detail system makes sense!!!!!!
By anon
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 4:20pm
The detail system makes sense. It makes the city safer and construction companies more accountable. It's the perfect marriage between the public and private sector. Let's be clear about somethihg .. taxpayers don't pay for the details. The companies that do business in the city do. The city bills these companies for services rendered by a detail officer. Now .. with no detail to pay .. the companies will simply maximize their profits by putting that money in their pockets. God forbid we ask a construction company to take some safety precautions by hiring a detail officer. Cuz construction companies are so trust worthy (see falling tunnel collapse that kills woman from Boston) And .. according to the State Auditor (Joe DeNucci) .. we - as taxpayers - will now pay more money for a person (flagger) with no public safety background or understanding of motor vehicle safety issues - to waive a flag. Let's pay more for less. Pay more and get less in return. If u don't like cops .. that's one thing .. but .. attempting to justify the attack on the detail system by arguing the city is better off with flaggers is flat out ridiculous.
You're speaking nonsense
By Kaz
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 5:13pm
The construction company pays for the flagger...who then bills the state to do their work. We're all paying for whatever flagger (civilian or cop) because the work is being done *by the state*.
State -> company -> flagger. You fund the state. You pay for the flagger.
Not what this post is about.
By Dan Farnkoff
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 8:04pm
Police, politicians, and other interested parties are more than free to argue that the detail system is best left alone. They can do so (and have done so) by displaying bumper stickers on their personal vehicles making that case, or their union can hire a lobbyist to argue the point at the state house or city hall, they can pen an oped in the local paper making the case, etc. But if the city and state governments have decided, through their proper deliberative processes, that civilian flaggers will be used at certain construction sites, rogue police officers or groups of the same have absolutely no business threatening flaggers with arrest, or otherwise harassing people who are doing nothing illegal, and indeed merely doing their job.