Hey, there! Log in / Register
Thomas Nee: Part of the problem
By adamg on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 9:33am
The Outraged Liberal takes note of the anti-Patrick blue line outside a Fenway Park party for visiting governors, says maybe Patrick could have kept his promise to add 1,000 more cops, even with the Great Recession, if only union's such as Nee's would have been willing to regnegotiate contracts over such issues as health-care costs and the Quinn bill:
... Keep all those facts when you listen to Nee and remember he's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem. And he loves playing politics as much as he loves policing. Maybe more.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Yeah, but did Nee and the Union
Pay for duty cops to work the protest?
The Outraged Liberal:
The Outraged Liberal: the man who says 'Nee'.
2,000 cops ... at time and a half ?
Maybe its just me but public servants making six figure incomes seems like a compensation issue on the public payroll. Drive Route 128 after 7PM between Route 3 and 95 South to Providence, which is currently under construction, and count the number of state police cars parked along the route with their lights on and officers sitting inside. See if you can count the number of officers (earning overtime) using both hands and feet - that'd be 20 or less. I bet you cant.
2000 cops were off duty and
2000 cops were off duty and were not getting paid anything. Do you really think they weregetting time and a half to protest?
Interesting mentality.
The police weren't advocating specific employment issues, they were arguing Deval should lose his job for his influence over the police contract. They made it personal, not business. They identified an enemy, an enemy who was elected by a plurality of citizens of the Commonwealth. Interesting mentality.
dump deval.
I don't think that means the police think he should lose his job. Probably just means they want someone else in the job.
And wouldn't your job "business" effect your "personal" issues?
I don't think you have enough time for me to explain it to you
How do you get from "Dump Deval" to "Probably just means they want someone else in the job?" Does the word "dump" have a secret meaning in police speak? Do you think they have anyone in particular in mind or just someone else, anyone really?
Instead of arguing the issues - IE we want exclusive right to staff road construction flagging or whatever - they are calling for Deval to be dumped. There's a self-centered solipsistic world view implied in their response to valid, arguable issues at hand. Instead of winning over public opinion with a superior argument on the merits - IE why they should be given these benefits and how the public is served by them - they project an attitude of entitlement and do their cause no favor.
Furthermore, they disregard Patrick's work in other areas of policy and disrespect his authority to decide without one word as to why his policy decisions in these areas are faulty.
In short, they make no argument and project as as entitled whinny tittie babies who don't want to deprived of the public tit to earn overtime that can amount to annual compensation in excess of $100,000. Why shouldn't they turn to the private sector and private funds for extra work? Why should the taxpayer fund it?
dump and deval both start with the letter "D"
It's really that simple. If his last name started with the letter "O", they might have used the word "oust". You can go through the alphabet and figure out other names and words since you always have time to hate police officers and post about it.
How do you know what arguement they make? It isn't just about details and overtime (Deval has no say in overtime). Its about collective bargining rights that any union employee is entitled to. This means the same ASME union cafeteria working at $9 an hour can have all their bargining power taken out from under them because Deval wants to give cities and towns those rights to do so.
So the issue now comes down to the fact that towns like Weston can just give their workers all the benefits they can so they can get the best candidates. The can make it without state help. But the city of Lynn is not able to do the same thing without state help. So Lynn has to layoff firefighters and police officers and now they have to convince people to actually take one of those jobs in those towns. Hell, Boston still can't get people to take the dam police jobs!
And listen closely again on this one:
Deval gave the State Police guatanteed details on every state highway and every State Trooper gets a full Quinn Bill for the rest of their lives.
He cut the state funding to every other police agency.
If Deval cared so much about saving money, why didn't he just listen to people like Swirrly and have highway workers do the work on state roads?
I'll tell you this. If you live in a rich town and make good money, you should vote against the income tax next time it goes around. The small increase in property taxes will nothing compared to what you would have to pay for an income tax. The rich towns benefit under Devals changes and the poor towns suffer. This is far from 'progressive' politics.
the most cowardly
I don't hate police officers.
But I have no patience for ignorant people who make stupid arguments. You're the exception.
I have even less patience for officers of the law who disregard the law and use the inherent danger of their job as an excuse to abuse the law. And the officers that look the other way when a cop crosses the line, and for example beats down a kid for public drinking, they are the most cowardly.
No one likes bad cops.
No one.
But it is clear that you still don't understand what happens in the real world. I assume you are talking about the Woodman kid when you talk about getting beat down for public drinking. You just don't get that if he didn't resist, the cops would have never had to touch him, and if he didn't have a heart condition, he never would have died, and if he didn't have alcohol illegally, he would have never been arrested, and if he never said anything, he would have never been stopped.
You do hate police officers, and you take every chance you get to point out (in your mind) situations where you think something should or shouldn't happen. You don't understand the real world so you get confused why these things do or don't happen.
With all due respect, Pete....
..you don't seem to understand the concept of "proportionality" very well.
I don't think you understand it.
Proportionality is decided by the legislature and then the courts for all intents and purposes. You can't be arrested for speeding, but you can be arrested for driving without a license and for murder. There are felonies and misdemeanors, and there are use of force charts in regards to the proper amount of force used in arrests.
If you get arrested for murder or for driving with an expired license, and you resist arrest by refusing to put your hands behind your back, the police have the legal right to use the same amount of force for both crime.
The police aren't allowed to use more force (like using their batons, or punching the man) for the man being arrested for murder, they are legally allowed to use the same amount of force that they would against the guy being arrested for driving with an expired license.
So both people might end up with a sprained wrist after resisting for both of these crimes. The sprained wrist isn't a "punishment" for murder or for driving on an expired license. The sprained wrist occured because the person resisted arrest, and people often times get hurt when they resist arrest.
No one is saying that Woodman's death was a punishment for drinking in public, and obviously we don't have a death penalty for that crime either.
But let's say Woodman actually did murder someone and the cops stopped him and the exact same process happened where Woodman grabbed onto a fencepost and ended up dying in police custody. The police would still be at fault and not at fault for the exact same things outlined in those final reports. The initial crime really does not matter in these cases, the crime of resisting arrest does.
No one is saying that
No one is saying that? No one?
What you ARE clearly saying is that Woodman's death was a result of his actions, not police actions. You are clearly blaming the victim. There are 3,000,000 reasons that say the BPD did not act with clean hands in the arrest of David Woodman; did not exercise their authority with good judgment; were not required to be accountable for how they acted and what they observed.
You have no monopoly of the perspective of the "real world." The "real world" is the excuse police use claim the risk posed to their safety justifies 'extreme measures' which violate the law. Many readers would and have said that your vision of the "real world" is occluded by the thin blue line.
It was a result of both.
Fact: Woodman would not have died if he was not drinking illegally.
Fact: Woodman would not have died if he didn't resist arrest.
Fact: Woodman would not have died if the police didn't struggle with him.
That does not mean it is 100% Woodman's fault, although he should take some blame. If you have a heart condition, you should not be provoking the police or resisting arrest, and maybe you shouldn't be drinking that much where you may not have control of your actions. So yea, some of the fault does go to him.
And I'm not a doctor, but a doctor did say he died because of a heart problem. So in fact, he may have lived if the police simply used a tazer on him. Or he may have lived if they got him medical care right away. He would have lived if the police decided to let him go and decided not to pursue the arrest. The police were at fault for not getting him medical treatment right away. They were not at fault for the arrest procedures up to that point. I don't know how many times I have to expalain that to you.
If these "extreme measures" violated the law, then why did the DA's office not charge anyone? Or how does that make my perspective on what happend so out of whack when my story was the same as the doctors and district attorneys?
So it was partially that cop
So it was partially that cop in Cambridge's fault that he got hit by a drunk driver? After all, he wouldn't have been hit if he hadn't been directing traffic.
fault?
I wouldn't say so. Directing traffic isn't a crime (like drinking in public and resisting arrest is). If he wasn't wearing the proper reflective equipment then part of it may have been his fault.
But you are right. If he decided to be a landscaper instead a police officer, he wouldn't have gotten hit by that car. That was the risk he took becoming a police officer. I'm not going to put blame on the guy for that though would you?
But seriously, do you see any difference?
I wouldn't say so. Directing
The logical fallacy in your argument is that a person doing something illegal brings upon them self all responsibility for whatever happens next, whether at the hands of civilians or police. For example, a person suspected of public drinking and suspected of resisting arrest are at fault for the damage to themselves if they are arrested with sufficient force to cause respiratory and cardiac arrest. Even the law says that suspects have civil rights and that police have limits on how they behave in securing suspects regardless of what they are suspected.
Do you really believe what you're saying?
Do you act on these principles on the job?
Honestly, no, I see no
Honestly, no, I see no difference. I find it VERY hard to believe that the police officer didn't do something illegal, at some level, in the previous 12 hours. Everyone is constantly breaking various laws in one minor way or another. And public drinking, even public intoxication, is simply not a significant crime.
Deval takes away the veterans points
whats next deval taking away the veterans point on tests. We all know how much deval hates veterans he took away the vets position in his cabinet almost had the signs banned from highways and cuts the quinn bill shame on you deval
looks like deval took away punctuation
and capitalization too horrors
I'm actually for changing the veteran system.
Actually the whole civil service system needs to be looked at. Not exactly the best way to recruit the best possible police officers in my opinion.
How many of those troopers have died or been injured?
Doing highway detials over the past 10 years? Several have been killed and several injured just this year (including one death).
Of course you know every state in the country is going to have police escorts on highway road projects. The purpose of these troopers is not to stand out side and use their hands and feet either (especially at night). When these construction crews have to shut down lanes and exits, they have to be in their cars to block those lanes and exits. Police lights tend to slow people down more than highway vehicles with lights.
And like any form of shift work, you need to work a lot of extra overtime to make six figures. And if your department is staffed right, you don't need to pay that overtime. The Boston Police can't even find qualified candidates to fill the miminum amount of staffing levels as it is.
Blocking lanes and shutting down exits
You have to be a cop to do that? Gee, and here my non-cop dad managed that with his road crews for the twenty years he was actively working construction by using the rotobeams on top of state vehicles and a light truck with a big arrow to trail the guys dropping cones. They were state workers, true, but not cops.
I wasn't aware that it took years of police training to do that, nor that every state in the country does it. Has something changed in the last decade? Last I checked, Oregon was one of the US states - since 1859 at least.
Like I said.
Police cars can slow people down and give people a second thought about doing something stupid or reckless.
And maybe the whole work crew would have been killed a few weeks ago when that trooper got killed? I would bet money that police in Oregon have police officers that work on some contruction sites, especially on highways where it is usually recommended that police cars accompany these sites. They may not be requiried to do so per contract (like the MA state police are) but I am sure there are situations where police work on night construction worksites.
Of course there is another issue here with those details. It just so happens that any road that the state police are responsible for (even smaller ones like the West Roxbury Parkway) are required to have State Troopers and no flaggers. Also funny how the State Police Quinn Bill is "guaranteed" for life because of a contract, while cities and towns that negotiated for the same benefits and contracts are somehow not guaranteed?
It's all about you, isn't it?
Something that's an outright employee benefit, like the Quinn Bill, really should be guaranteed for life, since people signed on depending on it, much like they did for their health insurance and whatnot. (That being said, those of us who work in less cushy government-funded jobs are told every few years that the agency is really sorry but they are cutting back our health insurance or our education benefits or whatnot because of funding cuts, and they had to make the choice to cut back in order to keep our programs open at all. We also don't get raises. We take these things in stride, since we've gone into a field that's about helping the public for very little money.)
But contracts? Why on earth would those be "guaranteed?" It isn't like you have a magic right to keep every contract you've ever had, just so you can get more work. If the public decides that having officers do X is no longer needed in the community, then that's what happens. There might be layoffs, but I also know that police officers get more than just the state unemployment insurance, which most people in taxpayer-funded work don't. But really, it sounds pretty assholish to be all like "but they should KEEP COPS WORKING THOSE JOBS!" rather than being concerned about the public you're hired to serve. You don't see us saying, "keep the institutions open! I know that the people we serve do so much better moving out into group homes, but I've got a family to raise!" No, we advocate pretty much exclusively on the behalf of the good of the people we serve. And as the field changes, we change along with it. A lot of people who used to be wardens in state institutions are now rehabilitation specialists, visiting people in their apartments and helping make sure they have the things they need/
You are confusing two things, and one of them isn't my point.
Many things in contracts are guaranteed and should be guaranteed when you deal in good faith. Jobs are never guarenteed and police unions never have control over that kind of thing.
Look at this for an example. Lets say a company wants a union to get a 1% raise and the company wants the union to pay for 30% of the health insurance while the company pays 70%. Then the Union says no, we want a 3% raise and we want to pay for 20% while the company pays for 80%. Then both sides agree that there will be a 2% raise where the company/union health pay is 75%/25%. Do you think it is right for the company to then say "oops, we now realize we cannot pay you the 2%, we have to cut your pay by 4% but we still only have to pay 75% of your health insurance." There are labor law issues at stake here. Many unions gave concessions in good faith that certain other benefits were cut.
But my point about the state police is that their quinn bill is guarenteed for life because the contract says so and cannot be changed? How can that be true if cities can now violate their contracts on the same issue?
And I never said the Quinn Bill should be guaranteed for life if it isn't in the contract.
And I don't know what you think a "cushy" job is eeka. But I would love for you to see what I do and then tell me it is "cushy".
Cushy is relative
Just pointing out that we're also an essential service, and also taxpayer funded, and you have considerably better pay and benefits than we do. We're exempt from overtime (which, shouldn't you be too? You're professionals according to the federal regs, it would seem), we don't get raises, our health insurance is nothing like yours, we don't get severance or pensions or anything, etc. We just don't have the union or lobby force that you do, so no one really cares what our benefits are like.
And, I would wager, some of Pete's days
are "cushier" than others. Not every day could possibly be a backbreaking, psychologically battering hell on earth- even in Boston.
maybe.
But you need to understand that any type of shift work is going to have overtime. If you didn't have overtime, people would be forced to work hundreds of hours a year without getting paid. The entire overtime system forces the city or company to staff at the right levels. If there was no overtime, the city or company could just tell you a job needs to be done and if it doesnt you get fired. Then no one would take the job in the first place (they have trouble finding qualified people as it is.)
And the benefits are the same as any town or city worker. Its not as good as the teachers, and it is not as good as my Aunt's is in Sudbury (she is cafeteria worker). I should also note that I don't even have the city or state health care plan. I am on my wife's private company plan which is better.
I still don't see how you can say it is cushy. Although I do have cushy days as Dan points out.
Again, using your own
Again, using your own terrible logic, it's partially their own fault that they died or were injured.
see below for another explaination.
But the words "fault or blame" may not be the best ones to use I agree. It’s kind of like Brett's big thing about car "crashes" versus "accidents". We sometimes may use the word "fault" but need to consider several factors including intent, recklessness, maliciousness, etc when accessing blame.
Sgt. Doug Weddleton was killed...
... in the line of duty, when he had a deadly interaction with not one, but two, drunk drivers.
it was his "fault" in that he chose an incredibly risky profession that put him in harms way often.
but having known Doug very well, I can tell you that he would have chosen no other job in all the world.
really, though, if we're talking about blame, i blame the two jackasses who decided to get behind the wheel when they were drunk.
none of these people, not doug weddleton, not david woodman, deserved to die. and i don't blame any of them. it would be nice if folks could talk about precipitating events rationally, and learn from them, without suddenly blaming the victims for dying.
Thank you. Very well put, and
Thank you. Very well put, and extremely true. Which is why it's so offensive when Pete blames the victim.
Pete blames the victim
Pete blames the victim which...
1. which is a rhetorical tactic to displace responsibility from the officers to the victim
2. which is a logical fallacy that is apparent to any thinking person
3. which further undermines any trust citizens have in law enforcement officers
4. which puts the police in a bad light, much worse really than if police officers themselves held each other accountable for mistakes, civil rights violations and other lawbreaking in which civilians come to harm in their interactions with law enforcement.
Are you going to keep reading what you want to read?
I just said the words "blame" or "fault" are not always the best words to use. Stop thinking they are the only words to describe this situation.
The police officers were at fault for not getting medical attention in time while Woodman is at fault for resisting arrest when he had a heart condition. Woodman put himself in a dangerous situation. The cops put Woodman in a dangerous situation.
How come you keep ignoring the issue where I do blame the cops for not getting him medical attention in time? And how can you ignore the possibility that Woodman may have still been alive if he didn't resist arrest? And if it were someone like me who did the same thing (resist arrest), I may still be alive since I do not have a heart condition?
So everytime you try to sum up my argument, you keep saying things like:
Pete blames the victim which...
The victim does share some blame here AS DOES THE FUCKING POLICE. Woodman had every right to drink alcohol, he was 21. He had every right to make a snide comment to police. He did not have the right to drink in public. He did not have the right to resist arrest. The police did have the right to arrest him. THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE VICTIM.
I mean, do I have to type things in caps here for you to actually read them and understand them?
Why municipal health care costs went up
Since 2002 the dollar has lost over half its value. Doctors and hospitals can either eat this difference, and see their living standards fall, or raise prices. The thing with doctors is, if you don't pay them, you die. So they get their raises. The rest of us hopefully will catch up, but unless your job is as vital as doctor or police officer, you're going to be short for a while. Your living standards will fall and it will take a long time for you to negotiate a better wage which even keeps parity with your old life. (The same thing happened between the early 70s and the late 90s.)
One way to head this off would have been to tie the dollar to a physical asset, as it was tied before the 70s to gold. That might introduce a bunch of other problems though. All the current (ineffective) arguments are about who should eat this difference: the hospitals, the police officers, the taxpayers.
The implication for future budgets is that health care costs will not keep rising forever on their own, but they will go up over 100% of their 2002 levels.