Many state troopers make more than governor

[Waldorf]

Many state troopers make more than governor

February 7, 2007

BOSTON --More than 200 state police troopers who boosted their base salary by working overtime and road details were paid more than the governor last year, according to a published report.

Nearly one in 10 -- or 225 troopers -- surpassed the governor's $140,535 annual salary.

Four of 2,338 state troopers made more than $200,000 last year and 123 others made more than $150,000, according to payroll information obtained by The Boston Globe under state public records law.

The state police salaries are "vastly excessive and extreme," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan state budget watchdog group.

He blamed the cost of details for inflating trooper pay. Officers are paid $40 an hour for detail work, at least twice what a civilian flag person would earn, Widmer said.

"This confirms that police details are a costly and unnecessary burden on the state's taxpayers," Widmer said.

Massachusetts is the only state where police are automatically assigned to direct traffic at all road and utility work sites.

The state police pay totals reported by the Globe do not include money earned working details paid for by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or the Massachusetts Port Authority, meaning many more officers likely made more than $150,000 last year.

State Police officers earned $6.1 million on turnpike details for the Big Dig alone during the 2006 fiscal year, and they made $7.2 million on Massport details during the 2006 calendar year, according to the agencies.

John Coflesky, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts, said having officers at construction sites instead of civilians enhances public safety. "With us, you get a cruiser, someone with the ability to stop and issue citations, someone with a radio," he said.

Municipal police officers also benefit from working details. A 2004 study by Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute estimated the costs of local police details in 2003 at $93.3 million, as much as $66.5 million more than civilians would have cost.

State troopers' base pay is between $49,376 to $68,236 a year, depending on years of service. The higher ranks and detectives earn more.

Private contractors and other state agencies reimburse the state police for work on details, Coflesky said.

But Widmer said the consumer always pays. "It's of no import whose budget it comes out of; it comes out of the taxpayer's pocket," he said.

------

Information from: The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/globe

 

[Waldorf]

Some troopers' pay exceeds governor's
Shifts at airport, turnpike lucrative

By Suzanne Smalley and Matt Carroll, Globe Staff | March 11, 2007

Nearly 6 in 10 State Police officers who work full time at Logan International Airport or on the Massachusetts Turnpike made more last year than either the governor, the state attorney general, or the Suffolk district attorney.

Like all troopers, those assigned to patrol Logan and the turnpike profited by lucrative construction details, overtime shifts, and educational bonuses. But unlike all other troopers, those at Logan and the turnpike received daily reimbursements for driving their own cars to work. And they benefited last year from extra work directing traffic around detours caused by the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse and providing security at the airport during an elevated terrorism alert.

Of the 320 troopers permanently assigned to Logan and the turnpike, at least 185 -- or 58 percent -- made more last year than the $140,535 governor's salary and at least 37 topped $200,000 in earnings, according to a Globe analysis of payroll information obtained under the state public records law.

Of the state's 2,338 other troopers, 225, or about 10 percent of the total force, made more than the governor last year.

Michael J. Widmer , president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan state budget watchdog group, said he is outraged by what the details, overtime, and educational bonuses are costing Massachusetts, especially given the increases in property taxes and shortage of police officers on the streets.

"These numbers are just staggering," Widmer said. "You have 351 cities and towns, the authorities, and utilities, so the costs are spread throughout so many different entities. The bottom-line number is hidden, but huge. . . . If it were in one place it might have sufficient shock value to create some political momentum."

Governor Deval Patrick declined to comment through a spokeswoman on whether he plans to try to rein in State Police pay. However, in response to criticism after the Globe reported last month that 225 troopers on the regular force made more than the governor last year, largely because of construction details, Patrick said reforming the practice was "not at the top of my list, to be perfectly candid."

Some police unions supported Patrick in the campaign last fall, though the State Police Association of Massachusetts endorsed then-Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey , his Republican opponent.

A spokesman for the State Police Association, Jeremy Crockford, declined to comment on police compensation. Union officials have previously defended the details, saying that having officers at work sites is safer than having civilians.

But Samuel R. Tyler , president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a business-funded watchdog group, said he worries about the costs that details add to doing business in Massachusetts. "The state needs to be concerned about that in terms of maintaining business and attracting businesses that create new jobs," he said.

Tyler said he is also concerned about all the overtime that troopers are working. "It seems many more hours than you would expect for somebody in a public safety position who you'd expect to be sharp and alert," he said.

Danny Levy, a spokeswoman for Massport, said the agency is trying to find ways to pay less for security at Logan, where troopers direct traffic, provide security in the terminals, and conduct random roadblocks. But, she said, Massport is bound by the State Police contract.

"We are looking at other options," Levy said, declining to be more specific about proposals under consideration.

She did say that troopers at Logan worked more hours after federal officials last August banned nearly all liquids in carry-on bags. The Transportation Security Administration imposed the restrictions after officials in the United Kingdom said they exposed an alleged terrorist plot to blow up trans-Atlantic jetliners using liquid explosives carried onboard in drink bottles or smuggled in carry-on luggage.

Jon Carlisle , a spokesman for the turnpike authority, said that the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse last July, which shut down large sections of the tunnel network and forced significant detours for months, inflated salaries because troopers earned large amounts of overtime to direct traffic.

Carlisle said the turnpike authority decided to offer overtime, which is more generous than detail pay, to follow the standard set by Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who offered overtime to Boston officers for directing tunnel traffic.

Troopers on the turnpike also are responsible for patrolling the highway, including ticketing drivers for speeding and other violations.

Last year, the 176 troopers assigned to the turnpike earned an average of $155,700 and the 144 troopers assigned to Logan made an average of $138,300. The Globe included the $40-a-day reimbursement for driving their own cars to work in the calculation of turnpike troopers' average salary, but not the average pay for Logan troopers because it could not be determined how much they were reimbursed. All other troopers do not collect the vehicle reimbursement because they take home their cruisers.

On March 1, the turnpike authority eliminated the driving reimbursements, which cost the agency $1.4 million last year. Instead, it is giving troopers take-home cars with free gas, which is less expensive, Carlisle said.

Carlisle said the turnpike authority's budget is further strained by paying troopers for construction details, but that the agency must follow state law.

Massachusetts is the only state that requires use of police at nearly all road and utility work sites. Most states use less expensive civilian flag persons or electronic signs.

Widmer said troopers are generally paid $40 an hour for details, at least double what a civilian would get.

It appears that details are significant costs for both authorities. The six highest-paid troopers assigned to Logan each earned more than $31,000 on details; one earned $87,165 and another $79,275.

While the highest-paid troopers assigned to the turnpike made less on details, they made more from overtime. The top six earners made between $104,084 and $153,098 on overtime shifts.

A copy of the current State Police contract, obtained by the Globe, indicates that base salaries will continue to rise.

In exchange for curtailing the use of sick time, agreeing to allow the Legislature to set health insurance costs as with other unions, and accepting stricter physical fitness standards, the State Police union last year won a 5.5 percent salary increase retroactive to July 2005, and a 3.5 percent salary increase retroactive to January 2006. The contract calls for an additional 2.5 percent salary increase for troopers who pass the physical fitness test and wage increases of 3.75 percent effective this Jan. 1 and again on Jan. 1, 2008.

Suzanne Smalley can be reached at ssmalley@globe.com, and Matt Carroll at mcarroll@globe.com.
? Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Link

Rein in the spending, Deval.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

So what? In Massachusetts, cops can make a decent living, provided they do a lot of work and work a lot of hours. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how that's such a big problem and I don't see why it should be in the Globe so much.

 

[Waldorf]

Public school teachers work ten times harder and a lot of hours, but most of them don't get $200k a year.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

Public school teachers work ten times harder and a lot of hours, but most of them don't get $200k a year.

Actually, I am quite surprised that there has been so many articles about this in the Globe. The newspaper ought to cool it if they don't want to be retaliated against.

Public school teachers don't put their life on the line (yeah, I know, this argument has holes in it - teachers in the inner city, cops in the safe suburbs). Cops work significantly more than 50% of the days in a year to get what they get paid (yeah, i know, teachers grade papers on other days, blah blah). Teachers in my school contractually cannot have class more than 4 45-minute blocks in a day if they teach an AP class, and I believe no more than 5 in a day otherwise. Also, a lot of the compensation cops get does not come from their police departments - they come from other agencies who are utilizing their services (NSTAR, Massport, Verizon, Comcast, any company who tears up the street).

I used to have the exact opposite opinion, but I have a lot of respect for all the cops I know and I think they deserve every dime they get.

Given the scope of work, the hours, and the days that public school teachers work, I think that the money that they get paid (average $55-70k depending on the town) is reasonable. Not too much, not too little.

Given the scope of work, the hours, and the days cops work, I think the money they get paid is similarly reasonable. They are professionals, providing a professional service, and $40/hour is not unreasonable for that. There are lots of people in the private sector who get paid a lot more to do a lot less.

 

[Patrick]

I could be wrong, but are not both police officers' as well as teachers' salaries capped since they are paid by taxes? This sets a degree of artificial determination into how much each group makes, and it is therefore impossible to say they make too little or too much, as until a free market is allowed to operate those terms cannot truthfully be defined. what constitutes too much or too little depends on supply and demand, but since teachers and police are paid by taxes I believe they have salary parameters separate from those that would be established in an open market. Anyone agree?

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I could be wrong, but are not both police officers' as well as teachers' salaries capped since they are paid by taxes? This sets a degree of artificial determination into how much each group makes, and it is therefore impossible to say they make too little or too much, as until a free market is allowed to operate those terms cannot truthfully be defined. what constitutes too much or too little depends on supply and demand, but since teachers and police are paid by taxes I believe they have salary parameters separate from those that would be established in an open market. Anyone agree?

um

no.

 

[Waldorf]

My only issue is with the police details. They are both unnesscary and a waste of money. Yes, utilities such as Keyspan, Verizon, Comcast, Nstar, etc do cover the costs. There's one catch -- they pass those costs on to their customers, us. In addition, every time the state or a municipality has to perform road maintenance, yep, you got it, a police detail has to be there and in that case we directly pay for it through our tax dollars.

Massachusetts is the only state in the country with mandatory police details. There's something wrong with this picture.

Oftentimes I find the obnoxious flashing blue lights at every work site a little dangerous and distracting.

On the salary issue, I think their base pay is more than enough. For teachers ($25,000 to $45,000 is more the norm) is way too low.

 

[Patrick]

I could be wrong, but are not both police officers' as well as teachers' salaries capped since they are paid by taxes? This sets a degree of artificial determination into how much each group makes, and it is therefore impossible to say they make too little or too much, as until a free market is allowed to operate those terms cannot truthfully be defined. what constitutes too much or too little depends on supply and demand, but since teachers and police are paid by taxes I believe they have salary parameters separate from those that would be established in an open market. Anyone agree?

um

no.

If you were familiar with Labor Economics you would realize the difference between subjectivity and objectivity as regards judging who is and who is not paid "too much." you clearly are not.

 

[Waldorf]

I could be wrong, but are not both police officers' as well as teachers' salaries capped since they are paid by taxes? This sets a degree of artificial determination into how much each group makes, and it is therefore impossible to say they make too little or too much, as until a free market is allowed to operate those terms cannot truthfully be defined. what constitutes too much or too little depends on supply and demand, but since teachers and police are paid by taxes I believe they have salary parameters separate from those that would be established in an open market. Anyone agree?

Patrick, you are correct that both police officers and teachers' (public) salaries are capped - capped by a contract negotiated between their respective unions and the administration. There are probably some sort of COLAs built in. Because unions have a lot of power in the public sector, the beneficiaries get perks such as police details and generous overtime and sick leave policies. Teacher contracts differ because they do not get overtime or get paid for grading papers or off hour tutoring.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

My only issue is with the police details. They are both unnesscary and a waste of money. Yes, utilities such as Keyspan, Verizon, Comcast, Nstar, etc do cover the costs. There's one catch -- they pass those costs on to their customers, us. In addition, every time the state or a municipality has to perform road maintenance, yep, you got it, a police detail has to be there and in that case we directly pay for it through our tax dollars.

Massachusetts is the only state in the country with mandatory police details. There's something wrong with this picture.

Oftentimes I find the obnoxious flashing blue lights at every work site a little dangerous and distracting.

On the salary issue, I think their base pay is more than enough. For teachers ($25,000 to $45,000 is more the norm) is way too low.

that is not the norm. In my town, the average salary is $55,000. In boston, it is $70,000.

 

[Patrick]

Given the scope of work, the hours, and the days that public school teachers work, I think that the money that they get paid (average $55-70k depending on the town) is reasonable. Not too much, not too little.

Sorry to display a meticulous adherence to the ules of economics, but I must point out that what constitutes a reasonable salary for any line of work is determined by supply and demand, not by someone's opinion.

the very word "reasonable" characterizes things which do not exceed the limit prescribed by logic. Opinions about pay based on hours and the scope of work have nothing to do with logic, because they are subjective. They will differ from person to person.

The only way to introduce regularity is to do what all trained economists do in assessing who is and who is not paid to much or too little: turn to the labor market.

Supply and demand dictate that professional baseball players make millions a year. Subjectively they seem over-paid, because they get a lot for doing something they would do for free. in economics, dude, that is called having a large gap between your paycheck amount and your "rservation wage." you'll learn these things at the job factory next year, dont worry.

Nurses, people say, are paid too little. But again, turn to the market: what supply and demand dictate is the "right" price. The only time someone can be said to be paid too little is if a price cap is put on their services (like with teachers) and if that price cap falls below what the open market would call for. All in time, Dude, you'll have plenty of opportunities to learn this.

Lastly, someone can be said to be paid too much only if there is a price floor put in place for the cost of their labor (their pay), like with minimum wage, and if that floor falls below what the open market would call for.

but if you consider the fact that raising the minimum wage may in turn raise overall prices as companies increase prices to combat rising costs, many min wage workers are really no better off than before, as everything costs more, even if they make more. but now I am straying and entering the domain of competing theories as to what affect minimum wage actually has (good or bad) on the overall economy and peoples' standards of living. Another story for another day.

 

[bosdevelopment]

duh.. supply and demand new idea me for.

 

[Patrick]

duh.. supply and demand new idea me for.

Apparently they are new ideas for dude.

it is one thing to say you know what Supply and demand are, and it is another to understand how they are applied n the determination of who is paid too much or too little. The definition of too much or too little can only be determined by supply and demand, that was my point, not an explanation of how the concepts work. If you read the whole post I am surprised that distinction wasn't clear.

 

[bosdevelopment]

duh.. supply and demand new idea me for.

Apparently they are new ideas for dude.

it is one thing to say you know what Supply and demand are, and it is another to understand how they are applied n the determination of who is paid too much or too little. The definition of too much or too little can only be determined by supply and demand, that was my point, not an explanation of how the concepts work. If you read the whole post I am surprised that distinction wasn't clear.

It's obvious that the market will dictate. Not everyone is paid based on what the market dictates though. Take, for instance, those New Bedford Leather workers. Rabble Rabble.

 

[Patrick]

right, thats my point exactly. so you can only say someone is paid too much or too little if it is an instance where the market does not lead the way. along the same lines, you cannot say that an occupation makes the right amount if it is not subject to an open market. rabble rabble

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

duh.. supply and demand new idea me for.

Apparently they are new ideas for dude.

it is one thing to say you know what Supply and demand are, and it is another to understand how they are applied n the determination of who is paid too much or too little. The definition of too much or too little can only be determined by supply and demand, that was my point, not an explanation of how the concepts work. If you read the whole post I am surprised that distinction wasn't clear.

You're really arrogant when you really have no right to be. Why did you pop up and start positing in our forums again?

 

[Waldorf]

Easy Dude, just go with the facts and respond in-kind.

Supply and demand with respect to labor markets work only in a truly free labor market (ie Dubai, China, etc...). Union demands will artificially push wages higher and skew the labor market. Of course it's artificially higher from the employer's point of view. I don't know, I could be all wrong.

 

[Patrick]

You're really arrogant when you really have no right to be. Why did you pop up and start positing in our forums again?

Do I hear the Pot calling the kettle something it really should look in the mirror to see is a personal trait of its own?

Dude, you are mistaken, I have every right to be, if you believe education counts for antyhing. You, though brighter than most kids your own age, are still uneducated in the literal sense of the word. I, on the other hand, have studied this topic in depth at a national university. It doesn't make me better than you, so dont let your feelings get hurt, but it does allow me to speak on this subject with more authority than you. So, when you answer a post of mine with "um, no" like some middle school adolescent uttering meaningless phrases, I really have no choice but to respond by showing you that "um, yes" I am right. there was nothing even remotely offensive about my posts, they were strictly concerned with the subject matter. If you were familiar with labor economics, you would see I am right. clearly, that will have to wait until you enter college, as it is over your head right now.

 

[Patrick]

Easy Dude, just go with the facts and respond in-kind.

Supply and demand with respect to labor markets work only in a truly free labor market (ie Dubai, China, etc...). Union demands will artificially push wages higher and skew the labor market. Of course it's artificially higher from the employer's point of view. I don't know, I could be all wrong.

you have it completely right. that was my point all along, though in a somewhat different context. Just like unions skew wages up, salary caps hold wages down (or have the potential to anyway). So, for teachers, who have salary caps, one cannot truthfully say whether they are paid "too much", "too little" or "just right" because all of those terms are defined based on how well teachers' salaries correspond to what an open labor market would dictate. "just right" would correspond to where supply and demand intersect, obviously, but teachers salaries are usually capped and often times they are capped below that critical graphical intersection, leading many people to justly claim they are paid "too little."

It really is an objective finding, not one that is open to subjective opinions, like Dude tried to put forth earlier. And that was my only point, not to be arrogant.