May 20, 2008 - Public Hearing Transportation Bond Bill Police Details

Oppositions Testimony

Michael J. Widmer President, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation

David G. Tuerck Executive Director, Beacon Hill Institute Chairman and professor of Economics Suffolk University

Michael J. Widmer President, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation

May 20, 2008
Section 10 of the Chapter 86 of the Acts of 2008
Police Details


As a follow up to the May 2nd meeting on police details, the Foundation offers the following suggestions.
 

In addition to visiting several states, EOT should conduct a thorough telephone survey of several highly populated state, including California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, to learn how these states manage construction details, whether they have developed a tiered approach for local communities, and what regulations have been promulgated. It would be helpful to know which of these states employ prevailing wage rates and whether they have conducted analyses of cost savings.

We also suggest that EOT examine the MBTA's flagger policy which uses both flaggers and police details at construction sites at separate rates. While the T does not have a job category of flagmen, T employees serve as flagmen on construction projects at the top rate of $25.97 per hour versus $33.00 to $43.75 per hour for MBTA police details. If the MBTA can operate a dual flagger policy with a $7.00 to $18.00 per hour differential, it would seem that MHD, DCR and local communities should be able to do the same.

We need better data. It is critical that the administration develop and maintain a consistent methodology collecting all necessary data from each city and town annually so that policy makers can know the real costs of police details. This publicly available information should include the total number of hours worked by police details, total number of hours billed by police details, and total amount paid for details by each city and town.

The legislation requests that the secretaries make recommendations to cities and towns on the sue of alternative personnel. The Foundation believes that cities and towns should be encouraged to provide for construction details outside of collective bargaining agreements. EOT should publish prevailing wage rates for flaggers in each region to assist community officials. Further, communities should have the option to use current DPW personnel as 'flaggers' at appropriate sites just as the MBTA uses its personnel as flagmen.

Eliminating requirements for four hour minimum shifts and reducing overtime charges is vital to cutting costs and should be included as a requirement in the 'construction zone safety plan' when selecting appropriate personnel.

Finally, EOT should provide an ombudsman to assist cities and towns determine how to apply the recommended guidelines.

In examining potential cost savings, a requirement of the legislation, the Foundation offers the following brief analysis.

It is understood that flaggers are subject to prevailing wage rates. Under the federal government Davis-Bacon rate schedule, flaggers, with one of the lowest rates for highway construction work in Massachusetts, would be paid an average of $34.05 ($19.95 + $14.90 in fringe benefits).

Using $42.00 as an average rate for patrolman as a base measure (Melrose paid $38.00 per hour for patrolman and $48.00 per hour for supervisor; Stoneham paid $41.82 for patrolman and $49.80 for supervisors), cities and towns pay over $7.00 more per hour for police officers than they would pay flagmen under the prevailing wage rates.

According to a Beacon Hill Institute report, Police Details in Massachusetts: Protection of Perk?, there were approximately 2.7 million hours of community construction police details in 2003. The calculation is an estimate but rounding the number down to 2.5 million hours provides a baseline to compute potential savings.

A $7.00 additional savings per hour translates into a $17.5 million in annual savings ($7.0 per hour times 2.5 million hours) for local communities. For Stoneham which paid $850,000.00 for detail work in 2007, using the Davis-Bacon rate would have saved over $140,000.00

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony.
 

David G. Tuerck Executive Director, Beacon Hill Institute Chairman and professor of Economics Suffolk University

May 20, 2008
Section 10 of the Chapter 86 of the Acts of 2008
Police Details


I would like to thank the Executive Office of Transporation & Public Works for this opportunity to testify. My purpose here is to expand on written comments that I sent in an email on May 3rd. I should like to point out that, in offering those comments and the comments that follow, I speak only for myself and not for Suffolk University.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports wage data for "crossing guards," defined as workers whose job it is to "guide or control vehicular or pedestrian traffic at such places as streets, railroad crossing, or construction sites." On its website, the Bureau reports the highest mean hourly wage for crossing guards, so defined, to be $16.23 in the state of Delaware. If the rate for civilian flaggers at work sites in Massachusetts was twice this level, it would still be less than what it costs to hire uniformed officers to do the same work. It is a foregone conclusion, therefore, that, by using civilian flaggers rather than police details, the Commonwealth could save money on public works projects.

There are two major obstacles to this savings, however. These are (1) the possibility that, as claimed by the unions, the pay of civilian flaggers will be deemed to fall under the aigis of the state prevailing wage law and (2) the language of section 10, which protects the monopoly power that the unions currently exercise over the staffing of work sites. Under this language, whenever a municipality is the "awarding authority." Traffic control measures recommended for consideration "shall be consistent with the ordinances or bylaws of the municipality wherein the public works project is being undertaken." Further,  the control measures "shall not affect any applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement under chapter 150E of the General Laws."

Next, with regard to local ordinances and collective bargaining contracts. I see nothing in the enabling legislation that prevents the state from hiring civilian flaggers when it is the awarding authority. True, under Section 10, municipalities would be bound in a manner that the state is not. But suppose that civilian flaggers become commonplace on works authorized by the state. It seems unlikely that the municipalities would continue to protect the police union monopoly once the costs savings enjoyed by the state became evident and the need for uniformed police was shown to be mostly nonexistent. In addition, the state could make it a condition for receiving state funding of municipal projects that the municipality repeal any ordinance that limits the staffing of work sites to police details.

Third, in formulating guidelines, you should consider modernizing work and eligibility rules. In general, for example, it seems that one uniformed officer at a single work site is enough. Any other personnel deemed necessary for the job could be civilian flaggers hired to work under the supervision of the police officer on duty. In addition, you should recommend that personnel hired to staff a work site be paid only for the time actually worked, rather than some arbitrary minimum number of hours.

Just one final point: We can predict that, should you succeed in opening up the market to civilian flaggers, many retired police who have experience in this work would be the first to offer their services. So viewed, your efforts would serve two worthy purposes - injecting competition into the market for flagger services and creating opportunities for police to remain active beyond their normal years of service and , in doing so, to provide the very expertise that they provide now. I suspect that, despite the vociferous objections of the police unions to any of this, there is more than one police officer nearing retirement who understands exactly this point.

I submit, in conclusion, that despite the obstacles considered in my foregoing comments, there remain opportunities here to bring about what politicians call "real change," I wish you well in doing just that.