Conference back40::soapbox

  Who, in Mass., in his right mind, _wouldn't_ be in favor of getting
  rid of police details at construction/road work sites, etc.?  Besides
  the police, that is.

    
|  Who, in Mass., in his right mind, _wouldn't_ be in favor of getting
|  rid of police details at construction/road work sites, etc.?  Besides
|  the police, that is.
    
    Given the way people drive in Mass, I suppose the workers in the road
    might be more than a little in favor of a cop between them and the
    crazies.
    
    Besides them, anybody who has suffered through CON-ED setting up a
    couple of small cones and then ripping up a few blocks willy nilly
    with complete and total disregard to everyone and anyone.
    
    Not only no "police details" but "Flaggers?  We don't need no stinking
    flaggers!"
    
    
    But what I do wonder about is why the folks from the "Live Free Or Die"
    state call into Boston radio stations on their car phones to complain
    about Mass police details...
    
    ...totally oblivious to the New Hampshire police details massed around
    Exit 1.
    
    								-mr. bill

>>   <<< Note 17.5264 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>>       -< Thinking people would be in favor of keeping the details.... >-

	oh well, that figures.  i keep forgetting you're the only
	"thinking" person around, billy.  ;>

	flaggers and/or cones wouldn't be enough, eh?  oh no, we couldn't	
	possibly get along without the cops.  right.  besides, they appear
	to be threatening corruption otherwise, so let's not mess with 'em. 

>    But what I do wonder about is why the folks from the "Live Free Or Die"
>    state call into Boston radio stations on their car phones to complain
>    about Mass police details...
>    ...totally oblivious to the New Hampshire police details massed around
>    Exit 1.

I doubt that they're totally oblivious to those details. I'd think they pretty
much recognize that they're worthless as well. Nothing fries my gourd more
than to come down Rte. 3 in the AM and see the signs indicating "Right Lane
Closed 1 mile - Merge Left" and see a bunch of State Poopers sitting around
in their cruisers doing nothing. If they'd get off their butts and start
waving people over into the left lane a mile before the lane restriction
actually begins, they could keep traffic moving a whole lot better than it
does. Instead, they ignore it and let all the airholes drive in the right
lane till they have to bring traffic to a standstill by merging at the very
last minute.

Di, aren't you a policeman's daughter?  Where's your loyalty?

The argument I've seen is that municipalities would have to increase police
salaries to attract officers if they didn't have a guaranteed extra income.
This is a bogus argument because we're all ratepayers as well as taxpayers.

Bill, I don't think anybody's opposed to flagpersons at busy sites.  People are
opposed to the idea that (1) you need a flagperson/officer at a construction
site on a dead end that sees three cars a day, and (2) you need a police
officer when 49 other states manage fine with lower-paid flagpersons.

I've seen lots of construction sites where the officer on detail was shmoozing
with the construction workers instead of doing his job.

    When you start with "Who... in his right mind...." you complain that I
    answer "thinking people"?
    
    Where's that pot-kettle note?
    

|	flaggers and/or cones wouldn't be enough, eh?
    
    In my experience, no, flaggers and/or cones would not be enough.
    
    
    All those in favor of replacing the cops at Exit 1 with cones, raise
    your hands?
    
    (Or to put it another way, all those in favor of taking another hour
    to turn the corner at the light on Spitbrook Road, raise your hands.)
    
    								-mr. bill

|The argument I've seen is that municipalities would have to increase police
|salaries to attract officers if they didn't have a guaranteed extra income.
    
    That's a bogus argument period.
    
|Bill, I don't think anybody's opposed to flagpersons at busy sites.  People are
|opposed to the idea that (1) you need a flagperson/officer at a construction
|site on a dead end that sees three cars a day
    
    What interstate, state highway or state road matches that description?
    
|and (2) you need a police officer when 49 other states manage fine with
|lower-paid flagpersons.
    
    49 other states don't have drivers who try to pull behind the pumper
    truck and nearly get run over by the following ladder truck.  (And
    flaggers are not by definition lower paid.)
    
|I've seen lots of construction sites where the officer on detail was shmoozing
|with the construction workers instead of doing his job.
    
    I've seen lots of construction sites where flaggers were shmoozing
    with the contruction workers instead of doing their job.
    
    								-mr. bill

>|Bill, I don't think anybody's opposed to flagpersons at busy sites.  People are
>|opposed to the idea that (1) you need a flagperson/officer at a construction
>|site on a dead end that sees three cars a day
>    
>    What interstate, state highway or state road matches that description?

Practically all municipalities require police details at all road construction
sites.  And, BTW, there are parts of the service road of Comm Ave in Newton
that match that description.  Since Comm Ave is Route 30, I suspect those
dead end sections are state roads.
    
>|and (2) you need a police officer when 49 other states manage fine with
>|lower-paid flagpersons.
>    
>    49 other states don't have drivers who try to pull behind the pumper
>    truck and nearly get run over by the following ladder truck.  (And
>    flaggers are not by definition lower paid.)

I've seen idiot drivers everywhere.

What's the average police officer's pay for a detail?  What's the average
flagperson's pay?

    
    
    Well, the flaggers work fine here in Maryland.  Now, I understand that
    we're a little brighter than folks in Mass. ;'), but we have our fair
    share of idjit drivers here as well who like to make everyone else's
    life miserable by not merging in a proper fashion.  We still get by
    without the police assistance.
    
    Mike
    
    
    P.S.  Sides, you want the cops to get out of their ar conditioned
    cars????  How dare you.

>|The argument I've seen is that municipalities would have to increase police
>|salaries to attract officers if they didn't have a guaranteed extra income.
>    
>    That's a bogus argument period.

If it's bogus, then why is a spokesperson for a police organization contending
that the cops need the supplemental income to prevent them from turning to
corruption?

    
|   Practically all municipalities require police details at all road
|   construction sites. 
    
    My town doesn't.
    
| And, BTW, there are parts of the service road of Comm Ave in Newton
|that match that description.  Since Comm Ave is Route 30, I suspect those
|dead end sections are state roads.
    
    Doubtful.  But even if they are, only mind numbing following of the
    letter of the rules would suggest that there needs to be a police
    detail there.  Could their be a not-so-hidden agenda of those who
    assign police details to dead end roads?  Nah.
    
|What's the average police officer's pay for a detail?  What's the average
|flagperson's pay?
    
    Average city of Boston detail pay vrs. Mendon New York flagger pay?
    Quite a lot.  Apples to apples is less than the increase in minimum
    wage that is about to go through.  Worth the money.
    
|I've seen idiot drivers everywhere.
    
    I have too.  But how many places can you find people just *ACCEPT*
    idiot drivers and actually blame the cops for the absolutely clueless
    who figure that "Right Lane Closed 1 mile - Merge Left" gives them a
    license to motor up the right lane at high speed only to slam on the
    brakes thirty five feet nine inches from the blinking arrow and
    pull inches in front of the car that correctly merged half-a-mile
    back?????
    
    								-mr. bill

|>|The argument I've seen is that municipalities would have to increase police
|>|salaries to attract officers if they didn't have a guaranteed extra income.
|>    
|>    That's a bogus argument period.
|
|If it's bogus, then why is a spokesperson for a police organization contending
|that the cops need the supplemental income to prevent them from turning to
|corruption?
    
    Because even *gasp* spokespersons for police organizations are quite
    capable of raising completely bogus arguments?
    
    
    								-mr. bill

>    I have too.  But how many places can you find people just *ACCEPT*
>    idiot drivers and actually blame the cops for the absolutely clueless

Who's accepting them? And, yes, I blame the cops for ignoring it and letting
it continue. What are they getting paid for? Presence? Apparently.

>>    <<< Note 464.6 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>>             -< Di, have you been listening to shout radio again? >-

    William, it has been my impression for years and years and years,
    irrespective of the fact that my father was on the force part-time,
    that _many_ of these details are a waste.  I don't need any RKO
    jocks to convince me.        

>>    In my experience, no, flaggers and/or cones would not be enough.

    Why not?  Do you think more people won't comply than will?    

    Why do I suspect you would be among the *FIRST* to complain
    bitterly if the cops were giving out tickets to all the
    oh-goody-I-can-pass-everybody-who-has-merged-left clueless
    idiots?
    
    								-mr. bill

|   William, it has been my impression for years and years and years,
|   irrespective of the fact that my father was on the force part-time,
|   that _many_ of these details are a waste.  I don't need any RKO
|   jocks to convince me.        
    
    It has been my impression for years and years and years that _many_
    of these details are *NOT* a waste.
    
    Get rid of the waste.  Don't get rid of the details.
    Simple enough, huh?
    
    								-mr. bill

>                    -< Jack, what would you have them do? >-

I already told you that when I first brought the subject up, Bill. They
can do what they're there for - increase public safety by getting off
their butts and out of the cruisers and stand there with batons waving
people over into the left lane when the merge is first indicated, 1 mile
before the lane restriction. Then they can have the second guy sitting
on his butt in the cruiser a half mile up get out of HIS cruiser and
flag down the folks who decided to sneak back into the right lane to
act like airholes and pull them over so that they can cool their heels
for about half an hour while the law-abiding drivers pass unobstructed.

>    Why do I suspect you would be among the *FIRST* to complain
>    bitterly if the cops were giving out tickets to all the
>    oh-goody-I-can-pass-everybody-who-has-merged-left clueless
>    idiots?

I don't know why you'd suspect that, Bill. I thought I'd made it pretty
clear already that I didn't have a problem with them doing their job rather
than sitting around reading the newspaper.

>    Get rid of the waste.  Don't get rid of the details.
>    Simple enough, huh?

And the proposal being suggested to the legislature, if I understand correctly
is not to REQUIRE the details at all sites by law. So I would take it that
you are then in favor of such a proposal?

    
    If I am not mistaken, retirement pay is based on salary for the last
    two(?) years while on duty.  If someone does a lot of details during
    that time, not only do we pay for it in the present, we also get to pay
    for it in the years ahead.  
    
    
    

    Police details in MA especially are littel more than a joke.  No one
    pays them much attention.  In NH at least the doubled fines for
    speeding in a construction zone are somewhat a deterrant for reckless
    driving while construction is going on.  If the details are going to be
    proactive in protecting the construction workers, great, keep them.  If
    not, get them off the road and trim the force.  
    
    

    
    re: .12
    
    >Because even *gasp* spokespersons for police organizations are quite
    >capable of raising completely bogus arguments?
    
    Which would make the real reason for having them (the details)..... what???

    
>>    Get rid of the waste.  Don't get rid of the details.

	But you didn't answer my question, Bill.  Do you think that
	most people wouldn't comply if flaggers/cones were used?
	How is it that it works in other states?  We're so freakin'
	special?

    re: the "real" reason to keep the details
    
    the ubiquitous, nebulous "public safety" argument

>    If I am not mistaken, retirement pay is based on salary for the last
>    two(?) years while on duty.  If someone does a lot of details during
>    that time, not only do we pay for it in the present, we also get to pay
>    for it in the years ahead.  

Do details count as salary for retirement purposes?

|Do details count as salary for retirement purposes?
    
    No.
    
    								-mr. bill

|	But you didn't answer my question, Bill.  Do you think that
|	most people wouldn't comply if flaggers/cones were used?
    
    Fewer people would comply if police details were not used.  Given
    the already miserable compliance, I don't even want to think what
    it would be like with just flaggers, or persish the thought, just
    cones.
    
|	How is it that it works in other states?
    
    I don't know.  In other states, where there is a "merge left,
    contruction 1 mile" people actually slow down and merge left.
    Without having cops risking their lives standing on the shoulder
    waving you to the left lane!  And without judging that as long
    as the risk of getting a ticket is low, anything goes!
    
    Even more puzzling, even people who generally exceed the speed
    limit (even folks in red Monte Carlos with their "u toucha my car"
    bumper stickers) manage obey the speed limit.
    
    Still more puzzling, if there is a posted construction speed limit,
    people actually obey that as well.
    
    Amazing, huh?
    
|   We're so freakin' special?
    
    We're so freakin' special alright.  Blowing through a construction zone
    posted at 45MPH on a road that is posted at 55MPH at 70MPH is freakin'
    special.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: 464.26
    
    It is computed in social security though, since that is based on your
    gross for the last 5 years.  (I'm still not sure about their state
    retirement though, my knowledge is not based on ma.)  
    
    al
    

	But Bill, if compliance is so miserable now, then we're wasting
	megabucks, n'est-ce pas?

|	But Bill, if compliance is so miserable now, then we're wasting
|	megabucks, n'est-ce pas?
    
    First, the waste is not in the delta between what a cop gets paid for
    detail work and what a flagger gets paid, so we aren't talking
    megabucks.
    
    Second, the real waste is in the cities and towns where details are
    used where they are absolutely inapproriate.  (Though given the urban
    legend of details on dead-end roads, I'm still trying to figure out
    why the Herald hasn't had a photo on page one of this mythical
    detail on the dead-end road.  I mean, listening to RKO, I figure
    there are fifteen such details every day in Boston alone!)
    
    Finally, let's just solve the compliance problem the low cost way.
    Just remove all the signs, post speed limits of 80MPH in construction
    zones, and bingo, all is well.  Never mind the cars that smack the
    biz end of a backhoe.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >462.5 ...49 other states manage fine with lower paid flagpersons.
    
      Are you forgetting that our state has really bad drivers. We are
    considered higher risks for insurance companies than other states.
    Yes, I know, it also has to deal with high theft but as a whole we
    can't drive worth a S#$@.
    
     I prefer the pigs than some Joe Smuck with a pretty flag. Don't forget
    the cops also carry a gun,mace,and a club. That's enough for me to
    drive safely and properly at a construction site.
     

    
    The one at exit 1 rte 3 yesterday had a bottle of snapple and a
    donut.  I was terrified.
    
    Or is it horrified?
    
    

>>    Just remove all the signs, post speed limits of 80MPH in construction
>>    zones, and bingo, all is well.  Never mind the cars that smack the
>>    biz end of a backhoe.
    

	No-one seems to be suggesting that here.  I see that you agree
	that the use of details should, at the very least, be curbed.
	So you _would_ like to get rid of details, presumably because
	there is waste involved.  Good.

    .32
    
    > The one at exit 1 rte 3 yesterday
    
    Well, you'd better behave anyway, Colin.  The staties out there on Rte
    3 are using VG-2s these days.  My question, given that radar detectors
    are not restricted in Cow Hampster, is *why* are they sniffin' 'em out
    anyhoo?

    
    >using VG-2s
    
    what is a VG-2?

|    	So you _would_ like to get rid of details, presumably because
|	there is waste involved.  Good.
    
    It's two short sentences, each really easy to understand.
    
    "Get rid of the waste.  Don't get rid of details."
    
    What did you not follow?
    
    								-mr. bill

    .35
    
    A VG-2 is a radar detector detector.  It's a VERY sensitive receiver
    that listens for the local oscillators in radar detectors.  The better
    class of radar detectors have radar detector detector detectors in them
    - mine does, and I turned it on this AM for fun.  It hollered almost
    all the way from where I get on Rte 3 (exit 6) to where I get off (Exit
    1).

>>    	So you _would_ like to get rid of details, presumably because
>>	there is waste involved.  Good.
    
    It's two sentences, one medium length and one very short, in which
    I express my understanding of your position (that being one which
    does not actually propose maintaining the current level of use of police
    details, as your initial reply in this topic seemed to, at first
    blush.)
    
    What did you not follow?

    
    I knew I should have become a police officer when it was offered to me. 
    Just look at all the extra $$$$ from details, and, be able to drink
    Snapple (and afford it) and donuts while I work. :>)
    
    Mary
    

>    Second, the real waste is in the cities and towns where details are
>    used where they are absolutely inapproriate.  (Though given the urban
>    legend of details on dead-end roads, I'm still trying to figure out
>    why the Herald hasn't had a photo on page one of this mythical
>    detail on the dead-end road.

In most cities and towns, police details are required _wherever_ there's
road construction.  Are you claiming that there's never road construction
on dead ends?

re: .1 (Di)

>  Who, in Mass., in his right mind, _wouldn't_ be in favor of getting
>  rid of police details at construction/road work sites, etc.?  Besides
>  the police, that is.

Why, the pols, of course.  Who else can buy the vote of the union membership
with our tax dollars?

If there are really "good" reasons for using police, one wonders why the
union spokesdroid mentioned the "bogus" corruption one.  Any thoughts, Bill?

And for the record, the statiedroids at exit1Rt3 almost CAUSED an accident
this morning.  They were so busy talking to themselves they weren't watching
what they were waving on (and asking to stop suddenly).  At least we could
reprimand a flaggie.  Raise concerns about the cop and you suddenly get the
"doyouknowhowtoughtheirjobis" speech.

Too bad it's so polarized, so black-or-white.  Some details should have
a large police presence.  Some details should have no presence.  To have
our cowering legislators cave in to the union because they fear losing
the next election is positivly vulgar.

\john

    Maybe I should file this under the AA note, but I'm definitely
    scratching my head over this one. I'm sure the sexism police
    are gonna crawl all over me for this but, well, truth is truth,
    so happy crawling...

    AA laws say you have to hire women police officers. Fine. But,
    women are, in general, smaller and lighter than most men, and
    it appears the criminals are not as concerned with AA; namely,
    it appears the male miscreants rather outnumber the female
    ones.

    So, my town hires two female cops, being good AA doobies and
    all. But, every time they send one of them on a call, they have
    to send a male officer too so she doesn't get the snot beat
    out of her. That means they have two people, on salary, that
    can't do the job. That's _my_ tax money paying for this
    foolishness. AA sucks.
                    
    -b

    
    They "have" to send a male officer, too?  Is that a law?

    -1 you're right Bri'... i think sexism police are in the process 
       of securing a warrant as we speak :-)

    
    Isn't it standard practice to send officers out in pairs to calls
    like domestic situations, drunks in bars, and such?
    

    i think it's more to do with dept. policy...

	why isn't this in the AA topic?  this topic's about reducing the 
	number of details.

    
    It was Brian!   Brian started the rathole!!!
    

    > They "have" to send a male officer, too?  Is that a law?
    
    No, it became department policy after some unspecified incident
    when one of the women went on a call alone (the story was in
    the town paper). The town usually has two officers on in each
    shift; they sorta divide the town in half, but back each other
    up when needed. When the women are on, the number grows to
    three...
    
    -b

    
      A rathole is not a detail.  And you cannot do details with a broad
     brush ?  I am amused at Mr. Statute's tirade du jour.  It is a long
     held, completely unscientific theory of mine that traffic cops cause
     traffic to pass any location more slowly, less orderly, more
     dangerously.
    
      bb

        >>...traffic cops cause
        >>traffic to pass any location more slowly, less orderly, more
        >>dangerously.

	ayup.  that would seem to be the case.

    
    Uh oh, now I went and did it... riled up the wimmins and rat-holed
    the topic in one swell foop.
    
    -b  

    "riled up the wimmins"?  you wish. ;>

    > Could their be a not-so-hidden agenda of those who
    > assign police details to dead end roads?  Nah.

    Is mr bill promoting a conspiracy theory ???????

    :-)
    Dan

|In most cities and towns, police details are required _wherever_ there's
|road construction.  Are you claiming that there's never road construction
|on dead ends?
    
    I'm claiming that if your city or town has such absurd requirements,
    then it is the responsibility of the *citizens* of those cities and
    towns to change it if they desire.  The state does not in any way
    require a city or town to have police details wherever there is
    road construction.  They only regulate state roads, highways, and
    interstates.  Local roads are for the most part under local control.
    
    
    I know there were exactly zero, count them, ZERO "police detail" present
    when there was major road construction on my street.  There were
    precisely zero, count them ZERO "police detail" present when there were
    cable stringers hanging fiber on our street.
    
    And we don't live on a dead end street.
    And we live on a street with far more than three cars a day.
    
    
    But where it makes sense (such as Mass Ave, which is a state road, or
    Grove Street or Mill Street, which are not), there are police details
    present when cable stringers are hanging fiber, and there are police
    details for even minor road construction.  They are there because it
    makes good sense for them to be there.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    My brother-in-law owns a paving business and if he is going to be doing
    work that interfers with road access, i.e., his equipment is on the
    road, etc., he has to hire a cop for detail to direct traffic around
    him.  I believe it is required by our town.  Last I heard the detail
    cop was at $25/hr.
    
    He'd rather use one of his crew to stand in the road waving people on
    and directing the traffic around.
    
    Details are nice little extras, and most police officers want all the
    details they can get.
    
    Course, if you stop them and hire road crews for less, the unions are
    gonna scream about it.
    
    Mary
    
    
    

>   <<< Note 464.55 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>                -< Then take it up with your city or town.... >-
>
>|In most cities and towns, police details are required _wherever_ there's
>|road construction.  Are you claiming that there's never road construction
>|on dead ends?
>    
>    I'm claiming that if your city or town has such absurd requirements,
>    then it is the responsibility of the *citizens* of those cities and
>    towns to change it if they desire.  The state does not in any way
>    require a city or town to have police details wherever there is
>    road construction.  They only regulate state roads, highways, and
>    interstates.  Local roads are for the most part under local control.
    
Mr. Bill, why do you lie?  If you live in the commonwealth of Massachusetts 
then when road construction is occurring in your town you must have 
policepersons present on detail at a cost of 25 - 32 dollars/hour billable 
in four hour shifts.
    
>    I know there were exactly zero, count them, ZERO "police detail" present
>    when there was major road construction on my street.  There were
>    precisely zero, count them ZERO "police detail" present when there were
>    cable stringers hanging fiber on our street.

Your town broke the law, you should turn yourself in.
    

I can't remember one road worksite in Mass that I had to drive past that did not
have either a local or state cop present.

I can count on one hand the number of road worksites in NH that I've driven past
that had a police officer present. Most NH (Vermont as well) sites have 
flaggers (men and women) whom I'm sure don't make more than $10-$12 bucks an 
hours, and the benifits and liabilities belong to the construction company, 
not the town/state.

The cops at the SpitBrook construction are absolutely necessary in directing
traffic around the construction vehicles. The cops may not be needed 100%
of the time but they have to be there when they are needed. 

Yes, the Mass law is a political one, made to please the unions and keep
the votes. Abolish that stupid law and save yourself the wasted money.

Just another reason to move out of that political swamp of a state.

Doug.


>    There were
>    precisely zero, count them ZERO "police detail" present when there were
>    cable stringers hanging fiber on our street.

I don't believe the law requires police for utility work unless that work
requires the modification of the roadways.

re:.4

Word!

I had the unique privilege of testing a commute to MK recently, and then had to
proceed to my current location in MR...negotiated the details 3N, 3S, several
along 495...not to mention the one I encountered out of Boston onto 93S that
a.m.

There's the perennial one on Rt9. And, as I left my last appointment for the
day I drove into yet another at 9p.m. I thought I was in an episode of the
Twilight Zone...

And in virtually _every_ one of these obstacles, the prevailing mindset seemed
to be switch to the closed lane in order to muscle in on the open lane when
there's no more road...and the cops are either condescendingly looking on or
waving you past at a point where it seems quite redundant (to me). 

    for the record, i talked to a friend who does some of these details for
    a local police dept., and he said that the average pay per hour is
    between $25-30. it depends on what the negotiated rate is in the
    contract between the town/state and the contract company. the pay is
    usually figured as time and a half for the officer. 
    
    

> Note 464.27 
>    Fewer people would comply if police details were not used.  Given
>    the already miserable compliance, I don't even want to think what
>    it would be like with just flaggers, or persish the thought, just
>    cones.

Oh, baloney. You must be one of those people who feel society would crumble
if the police disappeared. Fear of death or damage to their vehicle is why
people comply, slow down, and drive more carefully at construction sites.
Construction equipment is what, 8-10x the size and weight of your econobox?
What will happen if you drive at high speed into a 10 foot deep hole?

> Note 464.55
>    I know there were exactly zero, count them, ZERO "police detail" present
>    when there was major road construction on my street.  There were
>    precisely zero, count them ZERO "police detail" present when there were
>    cable stringers hanging fiber on our street.
>    And we don't live on a dead end street.
>    And we live on a street with far more than three cars a day.
>    								-mr. bill

I know there were exactly four, count them, FOUR "police detail" present
when there was major road construction on a street near me.
And it's a street with about three cars a day, since it's been torn up and
detoured for about a month now, and an easy alternate route is now clear with
school out.

    
    I've been passing construction in Ayer every morning this week.  Two 
    police officers, one at each end of the construction.  Both very
    conscientiously directing traffic.
    
    I've also been passing construction in Acton.  One police officer
    gabbing to the construction workers with his back to the cars that are
    snarled up on either side of the construction.
    
    Bottom line, I don't care if the town uses police officers or flaggers.  
    I just want someone to direct traffic around the construction!
                                  

    
    <------
    
    and I suppose you want them to walk on water too????
    
    

    
    <-----------no, more like walk on coffee!!

    re .60
    
    The union constantly harangues about the danger of police work.  I
    assume your information is correct about officers receiving time and a half
    for details.  Is the union saying that details, where most officers
    that I have noticed are standing and chatting with the crew, are more
    dangerous than busting up a domestic dispute, for which they receive
    straight time?  

    re last
    
    according to my friend, details like these are done AFTER their normal
    shift is over, or on a day off, thus it's time and a half, just like it
    would be for anything over 40 hours for anyone who is an hourly worker. 
    besides, the town pays straight time, but a utility can afford to pay
    the extra ot. 
    he also points out that cops have been killed on details before, so the
    potential for danger is present even in that part of the job.
    
     

    Re: .66
    
    >he also points out that cops have been killed on details before
    
    I was thinking about this.  The cops on Spitbrook are out there
    directing traffic; everything would grind to a halt if they didn't. The 
    state police up around exit 6 just sit in the car, or chat with the 
    workers.  However, I wouldn't recommend that _anyone_ try to direct 
    traffic on a highway; it's far too easy to get killed.  Only exception 
    would be routing traffic around an accident, when cars are already 
    moving slowly.