OUTRAGEOUS! - Boston cops earning $250,000 per - New England Patriots Forums

Real World · 05-06-2010, 11:11 AM

This just has to stop. This is simply outrageous. I honestly believe the only true answer, is an all out fiscal bankruptcy of gubmit. Cities, state's, the fed, etc. Go broke, go under, and let us start over. How can this be justified? I don't fault the individual for making as much as he, or she is allowed. I blame the system that allows it.

Home / News / Local / Mass.

Amid cuts, big pay for police

Overtime, contract terms boost some Boston officers

By Maria Cramer and Matt Carroll
Globe Staff / May 6, 2010

Even as Boston police officials laid off cadets and cut popular units like the mounted patrol, some police officers managed to dramatically boost their paychecks last year, in a few cases to more than a quarter of a million dollars.

Some of the officers earned extra cash because contracts require that officers working a detail or testifying in court be paid for a minimum of four hours. In one case, a lieutenant was paid for four hours after 15 minutes of case preparation.

All of the officers benefited from a retroactive, one-time salary boost under a new police contract. And all worked a lot of overtime.

Some examples:

Robert Ciccolo earned almost $237,000 as a police captain in the hackney unit — $37,000 of it attributed largely to staying late, doing paperwork.

His cousin, Steven Ciccolo, a lieutenant in South Boston, took in nearly $248,000, a salary made larger by almost $54,000 for patrolling parades, filling in for other officers, and testifying in court.

And James Claiborne, a popular captain who retired last year, made about $248,000, boosting his annual salary by almost $44,000, largely by going to community meetings and events in a high-crime district that covers Mattapan and North Dorchester.

These three officers were among the department’s top 10 earners in 2009. The highest-paid officer took home $272,000, and another earned $265,000; the other eight earned between $237,000 and $248,000.

Police pay can exceed $250k - The Boston Globe

***shmessy*** · 05-06-2010, 11:18 AM

Thievery, pure and simple.

Don't get me started on the whole, traffic patrol at construction site deal either. Thev're ARRESTED some of the private traffic control people who were doing their jobs in line with the law!

Incredible.

Boston/Cambridge has more top-flight universities and scientists per square mile than anywhere in the world. The other power center of the city just brings it down from where it could be.

Before, the region was competing with Atlanta, Raleigh, Silicon Valley for the jobs of the future. Today, that playing field is much wider to Manila, Beijing, Sao Paolo.

Get the Police Union in line finally or be washed up on the economic shore.

***Leave No Doubt*** · 05-06-2010, 11:35 AM

Budget cuts=more OT which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, to me anyway. If you truly want to rein in your budget you also try and cap OT? I'm no economist but seems basic enough.

Add to that the arrests of private traffic controllers shmessy mentions and what a recipie for cornering the market.

Traffic surveillance cameras have recently been added to a nearby intersection, the kind that are designed to nail people for red lights, the kind that require no or very little law enforcement intervention (you automatically just get a ticket in the mail if I have that right) so there you go.

Maybe they'll all be monitoring water bottles instead.

PatriotsReign · 05-06-2010, 11:36 AM

Another example of why unions are bringing down local and state gov'ts! The "Ride" is over folks...welcome to fiscal responbility!

No more "I gotta get my 20 years..." and I'm set

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

This just has to stop. This is simply outrageous. I honestly believe the only true answer, is an all out fiscal bankruptcy of gubmit. Cities, state's, the fed, etc. Go broke, go under, and let us start over. How can this be justified? I don't fault the individual for making as much as he, or she is allowed. I blame the system that allows it.

Home / News / Local / Mass.

Amid cuts, big pay for police

Overtime, contract terms boost some Boston officers

By Maria Cramer and Matt Carroll
Globe Staff / May 6, 2010

Even as Boston police officials laid off cadets and cut popular units like the mounted patrol, some police officers managed to dramatically boost their paychecks last year, in a few cases to more than a quarter of a million dollars.

Some of the officers earned extra cash because contracts require that officers working a detail or testifying in court be paid for a minimum of four hours. In one case, a lieutenant was paid for four hours after 15 minutes of case preparation.

All of the officers benefited from a retroactive, one-time salary boost under a new police contract. And all worked a lot of overtime.

Some examples:

Robert Ciccolo earned almost $237,000 as a police captain in the hackney unit — $37,000 of it attributed largely to staying late, doing paperwork.

His cousin, Steven Ciccolo, a lieutenant in South Boston, took in nearly $248,000, a salary made larger by almost $54,000 for patrolling parades, filling in for other officers, and testifying in court.

And James Claiborne, a popular captain who retired last year, made about $248,000, boosting his annual salary by almost $44,000, largely by going to community meetings and events in a high-crime district that covers Mattapan and North Dorchester.

These three officers were among the department’s top 10 earners in 2009. The highest-paid officer took home $272,000, and another earned $265,000; the other eight earned between $237,000 and $248,000.

Police pay can exceed $250k - The Boston Globe

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 05-06-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leave No Doubt

Budget cuts=more OT which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, to me anyway. If you truly want to rein in your budget you also try and cap OT? I'm no economist but seems basic enough.

We've all had this very conversation before, and recently.

I think, however, if you find the studies, you'll find that that OT is cheaper in the long run than is new hires. The fact that you've got to cut your budget doesn't mean that you are able to cut down on the amount of work needed to be produced. Probably even more so in law enforcment than in other businesses.

It's cheaper and more effective to pay OT than it is to put more people on the payroll due to all those "hidden costs" of each employee. For instance - once you've got an individual on the books you're payinga large portion of his health insurance, his life insurance, his retirement, his WC costs, education benefits, etc., etc. It doesn't matter if he works 40 hours a week or 65 hours a week - those costs are going to remain the same. However, if you restrict two employees to a 40 hour week in an attempt not to pay OT you are going to be forced to hire one extra employee to fill the man hours needed. You're going to have to pay all those "extras" for one extra person now....plus a full 40 hour salary. (Rough estimate here - ok? Say each cop makes $30.00 an hour for a total of $1200.00 per week or $3,600.00 per week for three cops without overtime. If you only have 2 cops and you are paying them each time and 1/2 for 20 extra hours you are going to be paying them $900.00 each a week in OT for a total of $2,100.00 a week or $4,200.00 a week for the two of them. That's a difference of $600.00.

So I don't know - add in the training necessary for each cop and the cost of the uniform allowance and whatever else is considered part of the hidden cost of each employee and figure out if it's worth more or less than $600.00. Unfortunately, I don't know what all those things add up to - $600.00 sounds like a lot of money to me but I also know that insurance and WC and continuing education and all those other things add up quickly. I'm assuming that it's more than $600.00 per week - or you add in the fact that you don't always need 120 hours of cop on the street - so if you hired an additional person they'd be unneeded at least part of the time. When you give OT for only certain situations it certainly seems like it would be more cost effective to pay the OT a few times a month or year than it would be to pay someone a full time salary year-round when you didn't really need him except for a few times a month.

I'm not explaining this very well, I know...and I'm sorry to be so disjointed in my thinking this morning - but you get the general idea, I hope.

Real World · 05-06-2010, 12:41 PM

You do save money for short term OT, but as the hours mount, you lose money by way of diminishing productivity/results. Giving 4-6 people 5-10 hours OT is cheaper in some cases, than hiring a full time employee that you have to train, and pay. The variables come into play when you calculate the rate those 4-6 are earning, as well as the lost value of excess hours. Someone working 80 hours per week isn't going to provide the value of two people working 40 apiece. Also, time and half, or double time, for a 20 year vet, probably exceeds the cost of hiring a base level employee. The point is, there are different variables that make it beneficial in some instances, yet more costly in others. On the short, it's usually cheaper, the deeper you go, it's not.

***Leave No Doubt*** · 05-06-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

You do save money for short term OT, but as the hours mount, you lose money by way of diminishing productivity/results. Giving 4-6 people 5-10 hours OT is cheaper in some cases, than hiring a full time employee that you have to train, and pay. The variables come into play when you calculate the rate those 4-6 are earning, as well as the lost value of excess hours. Someone working 80 hours per week isn't going to provide the value of two people working 40 apiece. Also, time and half, or double time, for a 20 year vet, probably exceeds the cost of hiring a base level employee. The point is, there are different variables that make it beneficial in some instances, yet more costly in others. On the short, it's usually cheaper, the deeper you go, it's not.

Bingo. OT piles up fast especially when it's multiplied by however many people. Then there's that pesky effectiveness thing; just how good can you be after 80 hours on the job? Anyway, this particular point is just one among several made.

***DarrylS*** · 05-06-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

You do save money for short term OT, but as the hours mount, you lose money by way of diminishing productivity/results. Giving 4-6 people 5-10 hours OT is cheaper in some cases, than hiring a full time employee that you have to train, and pay. The variables come into play when you calculate the rate those 4-6 are earning, as well as the lost value of excess hours. Someone working 80 hours per week isn't going to provide the value of two people working 40 apiece. Also, time and half, or double time, for a 20 year vet, probably exceeds the cost of hiring a base level employee. The point is, there are different variables that make it beneficial in some instances, yet more costly in others. On the short, it's usually cheaper, the deeper you go, it's not.

You are forgetting legacy costs, as much as this is outrageous, blaming unions is an easy answer... someone allowed this to happen. In just about every police department, fire department, corrections department, public transportation department there are overtime hounds.. they will take just about anything.

Someone authorizes the overtime, and someone signs the timesheet.. so people knew about this, and they are as accountable for allowing it to happen.

The way overtime should work is that it goes in rotation by seniority, for example today there is a shift available from 3-11 in Roxbury, so they start with #7 in seniority(for example) and finally #18 takes the shift, then there are two shifts available from 11-7 and they start with #19, and #26 & #31 take it.. then #32 is up for the next day time shift.. this is it in its simplist form, when I used to call OT in corrections the same folks would come up over and over, usually was on evening shift, calling for the morning shift.. so the night shift person would usually take it. It was rare for anyone to take 16 hours when kids were awake.. it was amazing that the same people took the shifts, and thus they made the most money..

When you call OT, you just want to fill the shift to avoid involuntary overtime as no one likes that... everyone know that they are not effective in their role, but it is what it is..

Sometimes the OT would go by classification, this is bad, but unless there is outright fraud it is the way the system works..

The Ciccolo cousins, according to the article had a base salary of about 200K.. which is in itself outrageous.. so they did not have to work that much to make 37K or 48K... if you are making about $100.00 per hour and OT comes out to be 1150.00 per hour, it does not take a lot of shifts for it to add upfor the 37 K guy about 250 hours, that is about 5 hours per/week..... or the other one making 54K about 260 hours or 5 hours a week..

The outrage here should be why is anyone in the police department, making a base of close to 200K... that should be a salaried employee..

khayos · 05-06-2010, 02:20 PM

The people who authorize that overtime likely don't want to be dogged by the union representative and hounded out of their nice career. And it goes all the way up the chain; when there's no accountability, why risk the cushy job? That's always where large bureaucracies fall on their face with productivity. There's no reason to work harder than the minimum and no motivation to stand in the way of rampant spending. Who wants to do that? The only thing that would happen is ruin the "authorizers" career until they found someone else to perpetuate the system.

***DarrylS*** · 05-06-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

The people who authorize that overtime likely don't want to be dogged by the union representative and hounded out of their nice career. And it goes all the way up the chain; when there's no accountability, why risk the cushy job? That's always where large bureaucracies fall on their face with productivity. There's no reason to work harder than the minimum and no motivation to stand in the way of rampant spending. Who wants to do that? The only thing that would happen is ruin the "authorizers" career until they found someone else to perpetuate the system.

You do not know what you are talking about, things do not work the way you think they do.. I gave an explanation, your answer assumes that there is no accountability anywhere, and if so that is the problem..

IMO the problem is the base salaries.. 200K is extremely excessive..