Globe Editorial Board: Boston police union needs to accept new realities of policing

Submitted by GlobeOpinion t3_zxc1xu in boston

The Boston Globe Editorial Board writes about the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association:

Michelle Wu knew even as a candidate for mayor that all roads to genuine police reform begin with the collective bargain agreement with the city’s police unions.

During that campaign she made some pretty big promises — promises that now, a little more than a year into her tenure at City Hall, are coming due, promises that run smack up against the desires of the city’s largest police union to maintain its current perks and add one or two for good measure.

But the times, as the song goes, they are a-changin’ and policing — as critical as it is to the safety, security, and economy of Boston — will have to change with it.

Read more: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/28/opinion/boston-police-union-needs-accept-new-realities-policing/

What are your thoughts?

49

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Yak_Rodeo t1_j208p9l wrote

globe paywall articles should be banned from this site

96

stargrown t1_j20fa1q wrote

Especially when posted by the Globe themselves lmfao

83

squarerootofapplepie t1_j20n30y wrote

Then don’t complain about journalism quality.

14

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20napr wrote

you have to pay for the globe now and their journalism quality is garbage so…?

−9

SpindriftRascal t1_j21282j wrote

That’s an easy thing to say, but it’s wrong. Journalism is difficult. It’s also expensive. Declining ad revenues make it very hard for any paper to survive. The Boston Globe remains a real newspaper doing real journalism - the only major daily in Boston doing so, actually.

17

Woah_Mad_Frollick t1_j21cxv1 wrote

Globe is excellent, god forbid we have any other real publications with integrity left

4

iheartconcentrates t1_j21i1dt wrote

Mike Barnicle, Ben Volin, Kevin Cullen. Such integrity!

0

SpindriftRascal t1_j21x2ai wrote

If you judge a paper solely by its opinion columnists, you’re listening to too much talk radio. In other words, you’re an idiot.

12

psyche77 t1_j2223kc wrote

Barnicle's been gone for 25 years. Volin is a sports guy. Cullin was suspended for 3 months.

7

NE889 t1_j200ayl wrote

They’ll complain about staffing levels and being forced to work so much OT. Then when a solution comes along to free up their time by not needing to work details at construction sites, or road work, they will complain about how only they are qualified and the added work is necessary.

74

Apprehensive_Text_68 t1_j23v0kv wrote

My guess is They want more hires. More people mean more union members mean a larger voting block and more dues collected. Went through this a few years ago when I worked with a union who was losing members, they demanded open overtime, then complained about too much overtime then we hired more people and they complained about not enough overtime. You literally cannot win.

1

jojenns t1_j21j2x6 wrote

Removing details does not impact the understaffing and mandatory overtime they are fighting. It is unrelated

−5

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j217ie9 wrote

Removing details from the equation will do nothing to staff the streets better than what they are today.

Edit: would love to hear why I’m wrong… but I have a feeling I know what’s going on here

−10

CerberusAteMyDog t1_j21zrtj wrote

Replacing a detail officer with a paid civilian doesn’t change the amount of “staffing” on the streets. It just means we don’t have to use taxes to pay some cop overtime for standing still.

12

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j2219bg wrote

So I don’t get it… this is how the city chose to make the city desirable for cops, by jacking up the detail rate for easy cash for cops instead of paying what the job actually commands for pay.

So now the plan is to underpay them, give them no opportunity to make more, and understaff them and expect it to go… better?

Don’t get me wrong, if the job was forced to self-insure like Reddit wanted it to, paid 350k/yr like those who self insure themselves make, and there were no details and only OT to add extra staffing available I’d be on board.

Instead we pay them a third of that and say make it up on details and now those are going away… so what incentive does a patrolman in Boston have to stay versus going to Quincy, Cambridge, Waltham, Framingham, or any of the other well paying communities with far better relationships with their cops and far looser rules regarding residency and essentially equal pay? Seems like a no brainer… BPD could easily become the next NYPD scraping the bottom of the barrel and staffing surrounding agencies in perpetuity or it could stay a top tier agency. Seems like a no brainer to me but it seems like, in the quest to have the best cops, every action taken is to have the worst cops.

I have yet to see a real “reform” that actually makes BPD better. Everything seems like a feel good talking point and nothing makes anything objectively better in terms of service provided.

−2

CerberusAteMyDog t1_j221ln1 wrote

You are aware the whole point is to defund the police, have less unnecessary cops on the streets, and reduce the amount of power the police have right

6

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j222q38 wrote

… then why don’t they just do that? None of this requires this show. Which is really all it is… a big public display with minimal actual impact.

They could solve it tomorrow at 8am. Tell the DPW they don’t need details, tell utilities to put up road closed signs and close the block and boom… done. Suddenly there’s few if any details needed.

Then cut the police budget by a few dozen million and pink slip a bunch of cops. It’s been done before and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING stopping them from doing that. Literally… NOTHING. That decision is 100% theirs and they can do it with no outside input. Not one thing is stopping them from laying off half the PD if that is their goal. Just to repeat it for you… nothing has delayed that option since Wu took office. There is nothing delaying it as there is a supermajority and no boogeyman to prevent this decision from occurring. It would require nothing more than the desire to do so.

They could do it now… they could have done it yesterday… but they won’t. Because that’s not actually their goal and they know that puts them in the fast lane to getting replaced next election. So they ain’t gonna do it.

So try again as to what the actual goal is.

5

some1saveusnow t1_j22wsra wrote

You basically just schooled this sub and all they could was downvote you. I think you know who you’re talking to out here, and they don’t actually know what they’re talking about on a deep enough level to come back at you

3

jojenns t1_j22hdyj wrote

Whos goal is that you think Wu’s?

1

fuzzy_viscount t1_j23z2n5 wrote

It’s really more about funding things needed equally, like mental health professionals.

1

CerberusAteMyDog t1_j24e2q1 wrote

Yeah but the way you achieve that is by not paying police insane overtime wages to do things a civilian can do, like details. The way you decrease funding so that you can increase it elsewhere is by having less unnecessary police on the streets.

2

fuzzy_viscount t1_j24eak6 wrote

You can also stop funding maintenance for mil-surp troop carriers and other ridiculous equipment we’ve let them justify. Doesn’t matter if it’s free that shit costs money to maintain and you’ve now got an expensive asset so you’d better use it… so much waste to be cut. Terrible messaging with the “defund the police” campaign.

2

2old4badbeer t1_j1ztbm9 wrote

The residency requirements screw both sides. The city should want to bend on it to alleviate overtime costs and recruitment issues. The Union’s reasons are obvious. The city will never acknowledge that lifting the requirement benefits both sides, however, so an easy to resolve issue will become a sticking point.

18

bitpushr t1_j2086yv wrote

The residency requirement is so dumb I am surprised they could find people to defend it with a straight face.

10

Yak_Rodeo t1_j208kfp wrote

im not following. its not a good thing to have police living in and invested in the community they police?

13

bitpushr t1_j20c7c2 wrote

> im not following. its not a good thing to have police living in and invested in the community they police?

I suppose it is in theory, but how do you quantify it? How do you weigh the benefits (which are admittedly difficult to measure) with the reality that you are drastically limiting your pool of applicants for jobs?

Do you think someone living in Roslindale is going to be a better cop (or 911 dispatcher or arborist or...) than someone from Needham just because they live in Roslindale?

And if the answer to this is "Yes", how do you reconcile that with the fact that Boston Public Schools does not require its teachers to live in Boston? I would argue that teaching kids is a pretty important job...

18

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20eepv wrote

i think policing is a different beast from teaching or being a 911 dispatcher and officers are expected to be nearby to be able to respond to a major event

i agree with you that they are limiting the talent pool, and i think a provision could be reached to allow people who take the position time to move into the city

i would like my police force to be able to vote in local elections, know and shop at the local businesses and interact with members of the community they police outside of negative or enforcement oriented meetings.

14

boardmonkey t1_j2178h3 wrote

I think the problem that we are running into is that it isn't affordable for many to live in the city, especially for 911 dispatch. We are tied for the most expensive rents in the nation.

The average dispatcher yearly salary is $46,624 and average rent for a 811 sqft apartment is $3772, which is $45,264. They could live in Quincy where the median rent is $2.261 a month, or $27,132 yearly.

Also, living in the city doesn't mean they live in their patrol area. They can live in Dorchester and patrol the North End. They would have the same understanding of the location as if they lived outside the city.

10

mgzukowski t1_j21p9jo wrote

It just sounds like the city should pay better. No city worker should not be able to afford to live in the city they work in.

4

bitpushr t1_j20jxqb wrote

I actually agree with you that, in theory, it is a good idea. But there is a surprising lack of evidence that residency requirements help, and there is even some evidence that they actually make things worse.

I would rather hire a great officer who cares and lives somewhere else than an ambivalent one who lives next door.

8

mycoplasma79 t1_j21huty wrote

For the same reason jury duty is localized. We know what is normal and what is egregious in our communities. Cops should too.

3

2old4badbeer t1_j23hib8 wrote

There are plenty of criminals who take their arrest personally no matter the circumstances. Why aren’t judges required to come from the community, then?

1

cyanastarr t1_j217xud wrote

Are Boston public schools known for being good?

−1

michael_scarn_21 t1_j20aw6a wrote

The residency requirement is arbitrary and the invested argument doesn't work unless it's a tiny city. When I lived in Dorchester I felt invested in Cambridge because I worked there and Somerville because I spent a lot of time there. Places like West Roxbury and Charlestown whilst in the same city might as well have been on another planet and i had no idea and honestly little interest in the issues they faced.

11

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20dinz wrote

i dont think thats a great comparison, we dont treat police like other jobs for good reason, having a “reserve” of police in the city to get to work quickly in the event of a major event is a practical reason for requiring city residency

plus most police officers in the city are from here and went to school here and it helps humanize the police to the community and vice versa. seeing off duty cops at their kids sports events, involved in the community outside of work and so on is an important part of not creating an us vs them culture

8

Dontleave t1_j21gwgq wrote

I don’t know anything about their contract but are they even allowed to be called in off duty at short notice? I know there’s mandatory overtime but I believe they are either already at work or given 8 hours notice. Unless there’s something in the contract which again I have no knowledge about that says they can be called into work at any notice then the first point isn’t really applicable to someone who lives in Revere vs Charlestown.

I do agree with your second point that there is a community benefit to seeing police officers shopping at the same stores you do off duty but obviously there is a major recruiting issue so perhaps something like giving them a year to move in plus 5 additional years of residency required once you move in would help.

They could also look at covering moving costs for new officers from outside of the city as they aren’t getting enough from inside the city already.

3

Massui91 t1_j20kbyp wrote

Lol how are people downvoting this comment?

1

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20kzuh wrote

im confused too, a lot of the rhetoric around police reform in 2020 was trying to bring the police closer to the community they serve and not being an occupying force

5

2old4badbeer t1_j215t4x wrote

What’s your stance on police living in an extreme affluent town? There are plenty of towns that have average home sales over a million. There’s no way the average entry level cop can afford that.

2

2old4badbeer t1_j208yai wrote

There’s benefits for sure, but Boston has become so unaffordable that it’s pushing most people out. Only the very rich and very poor can stay. There’s a shrinking middle class. Nearly all civil service jobs require residency at time of taking the exam, but very few have such a strict residency rule. Plus many officers prefer to live outside where they work. Nobody wants to pick up their kid at school standing next to the guy he locked up last week.

3

jgghn t1_j21q10i wrote

> Nobody wants to pick up their kid at school standing next to the guy he locked up last week.

This is literally one of the reasons for residency requirements for police officers. They should be comfortable in their neighborhood and know the people they're policing. Otherwise it sets up a "The Others" situation for the officers, and they dehumanize the people they're policing.

3

2old4badbeer t1_j23hoym wrote

I mentioned this in another comment. Some criminals take their arrest personal no matter the circumstances and seek confrontation. It’s not always ideal. If we make police live directly with people they arrest, why aren’t judges required to live amongst the people they sentence?

1

jgghn t1_j23z37m wrote

Good point. Perhaps they should as well?

I don't think the problem with judges is quite as top level. We're all very familiar with how abusive police departments are to the people under their watch. A bad judge can have just as, if not more, of a profound impact on a person's life, but there's a reason why we see "ACAB" and not "AJAB".

0

2old4badbeer t1_j242uac wrote

I think it’s anti-police rhetoric that is the root of this “work where you live” thing. Let’s just call it what it is. A cop can make a bad arrest, the prosecutor can pursue and win the case, but a judge decides how long you go to jail and somehow the cops the only bad guy? We don’t hear “AJAB” because judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the governor. How do they get appointed? Well, look at their political donations. It’s an easy line to draw. Massachusetts governors, particularly in recent history, prefer judges who defer criminals from jail for better or worse. Judges are often a last hope for a defendant and they usually deliver. But that’s beside the point. I concede there are probably benefits to cops living where they work, but it’s not always practical and should be a choice. But to expect one group of city employees to and not others is unfair, unless there’s hard evidence that proves a benefit to everyone.

1

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20f18c wrote

i agree, but thats more of an issue with the city itself. i think the city could do some unique things to remedy it like significant homebuyer rebates for city workers who sign an agreement to stay for a period of time or some variation of that

we are kind of at a perfect storm with the city becoming prohibitively expensive for middle class workers while also national opinion is steering potentially good candidates away from police as a career. the days of the civil service exams having lines out the door for the cop test are long gone

1

SkiingAway t1_j215fdz wrote

Realistically, that's just pushing deck chairs around on the Titanic. The city can either build a fuckton more housing, or the city can cripple itself by pricing workers out of the area and coming up with increasingly absurd methods of trying to privilege certain groups of workers over others.

Beyond this, I'm not particularly convinced that someone living in West Roxbury has a better grasp of the issues facing East Boston than someone in Chelsea does.

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1zx9xb wrote

I'd agree that it could benefit the city but it is still a concession to the union in this negotiation. If one sider wants that change more, you don't just give it without getting something in return.

3

2old4badbeer t1_j202wi4 wrote

I agree. But if the city wants reform, they have to understand negotiation, too. The Globe can’t just say “it is negotiation, after all,” when it comes to BPPA’s stance on the residency and the city’s reluctance to drop the requirement and paint BPPA as stubborn in the same breath. It goes both ways. Nothing is free for both sides.

5

GlobeOpinion OP t1_j1zyswb wrote

The editorial board wrote about residency earlier this month: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/16/opinion/boston-no-longer-needs-hold-city-workers-hostage-residency/

−1

2old4badbeer t1_j201h8w wrote

Blocked by a paywall. Does the city acknowledge their benefit to lifting the requirement?

5

GlobeOpinion OP t1_j20x70k wrote

“The labor market has changed in the last 18 months,” said City Councilor Kenzie Bok. “But the [Wu] administration doesn’t want to abandon the [residency] policy and I don’t want to either.” If too many city workers live elsewhere, she argued, “it can erode the sense that we’re all in this together.”

1

2old4badbeer t1_j21603z wrote

So since you’re an opinion piece, what’s your opinion? Do you support residency for all city jobs as well?

3

GlobeOpinion OP t1_j24n5rn wrote

I'm Deanna, the social media editor for Globe Opinion! And I agree with the Globe Editorial Board — requiring residency is outdated and impractical.

2

stargrown t1_j20f4jm wrote

The Police Union makes the rest of us union folks look like a holes.

11

jojenns t1_j20lbou wrote

If your union isnt fighting for your collectively bargained rights just as vigorously perhaps its your union itself making you look like assholes?

4

stargrown t1_j20mmkg wrote

If by “vigorous” you mean with ludicrous and unreasonable arguments, maybe? Negotiation strategy aside, maybe look at their track record?

I’m not aware of any other union defending any pedophiles or protecting any domestic abusers. Name another union which has published newsletters packed full of bigoted content.

8

jojenns t1_j20ncqq wrote

There are losers rapists and domestic abusers in all unions. That POS going to president is unjustifiable and they should explain that. But that is all just noise unrelated to current negotiations, they are negotiating on behalf of all their members not just the shitty ones. Just like your union and every other union should be.

6

stargrown t1_j20ogvl wrote

Wow really, in ALL unions? I think such a batshit crazy statement only goes to prove my original statement. That argument is so fucking insane I’m starting to think you’re Larry Calderone.

−7

jojenns t1_j20pj8s wrote

What you think because it isnt reported it doesnt happen? Thats the actual batshit crazy take. I got news for you there is trash in every industry. Pedos your target today? it isnt the police union where you will find most of them they are in a different nearly as powerful Boston union. But again all of this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand its just noise and a waste of time.

8

stargrown t1_j20q9cz wrote

You have a very sad outlook on the world my friend. Go lick a boot and bring some joy into your life.

−9

jojenns t1_j20ro1u wrote

Right I should probably say only cops are pedophiles fit myself right into your safe little box. The only problem is that ignores the reality of the world we are in. Its safer to pretend cops are the root of all of societys problems the only problem is their union is gonna expect you pay for that :)

8

stargrown t1_j20s32k wrote

I said the police union makes other unions look bad. I get that you want to narrow the scope of the conversation so you can say “but their just doing right buy their members!!”

Nope, I said that because they do shitty things, such as defending and elevating pedophiles. Carry on.

−1

jojenns t1_j20srf5 wrote

I know it was crazy of me to think you were discussing any of the points highlighted in the article. Instead you wanted to discuss the previous union head who the BPD sent over to the DA to prosecute btw but everyone recanted. I know this is wayyyy too deep for you to think about but what should a unions position be when one of their members is accused of a crime and ultimately exonerated? Think they should just support their firing?

4

giritrobbins t1_j268vpk wrote

The issue is police unions occupy a weird position it seems. They seemingly can't do any bad when every other union is evil. There seems to be no political will to try and bargain down and when its attempted they're soft on crime or something like Austin happens where the police stop doing their job with support from the state.

1

emsilverstein t1_j20rmab wrote

Public sector unions on the whole are a bad idea. I entirely understand the desire to come together to collectively bargain for better pay/benefits/etc, but whether it be police unions, teachers unions, or anyone negotiating against the state, it’s a detriment to the public. The amount of corruption in public sector unions is obscene, and the opposing party (the state) isn’t as steadfast or rational in negotiations because it’s not “their” money, but rather the public’s money. Disband public sector unions as a whole

10

CerberusAteMyDog t1_j2208l2 wrote

Teachers are criminally underpaid and need a means to negotiate better salaries and benefits. Police Unions are just gangs that exist to strong-arm the legal system into never holding the police accountable.

15

too-cute-by-half t1_j23pjvn wrote

Boston teachers averaged $105k three years ago, probably closer to $110k by now. Most of my kids' teachers have made over $120k. They work hard, but the pay is better than most private schools and the benefits are generous.

3

CerberusAteMyDog t1_j241kla wrote

We’re talking about unions in a general sense. Teacher Unions are important for legitimate reasons and Police Unions aren’t was my point. Also, as someone who works in Boston Public Schools, you have to understand that the schools themselves are also criminally underfunded so while teacher pay is a lot better here than a lot of other places, BPD teachers often have a LOT more to deal with than say teachers in a suburban setting. Also, the cost of living here is insane. $105k to deal with what these teachers deal with year round in the city of Boston isn’t as much as you think it is.

3

emsilverstein t1_j22ufgd wrote

I’ll respectfully disagree. Not to discount issues with police unions protecting their own tho. Significant issues of the union closing ranks around officers which need to be reprimanded and sometimes removed from the force. But for teachers unions, specifically good teachers are criminally underpaid because teachers unions emphasize seniority over competency and the inability to fire/remove older teachers mailing it in. The negotiations of teachers unions emphasize years on the job over competency, causing great teachers to become unenthusiastic about their roles due to the inherently unfair pay structure. Obviously good teachers should be paid more, which is why private schools and charters schools perform better. It’s the unions negotiations which are the cause of poor performance and are in need of a change

1

Skertstreak t1_j20sxk9 wrote

Teachers need a union. As do many other government workers. The difference with cops is that at their core they function as a criminal organization. They are the biggest mob in the country

10

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j2173kk wrote

No, that’s the government.

Edit: which is how it’s fucking supposed to be

−3

Osprey11795 t1_j20z21q wrote

Especially the police, who already have qualified immunity and an enormous capacity to mess your life up. Zero unions for government employees.

3

Cormyll666 t1_j21efkn wrote

I’m vigorously pro-union except for police unions, which are the worst.

11

theliontamer37 t1_j21ildq wrote

So if you’re a public employee you’re not allowed to be in a union? Lmfao I’m sure that’ll help with the massive staff shortages the states going through right now.

3

amwestover t1_j23wqhx wrote

All true. But Democrats reap what they sow. It’s pretty funny hearing all the stupid replies complaining about the police union.

1

giritrobbins t1_j269435 wrote

As someone represented by a union and a worker in a public sector I disagree (though obviously I have a conflict of interest). I already have a number of my rights curtailed because of my employment status, I should have some control or say over my working conditions collectively.

1

pillbinge t1_j203em8 wrote

Do they need to? It seems like they don't, and in some cases, not doing so benefits them. That's sort of one of the benefits of having real power in negotiations. I even wish other unions would exercise it, like nurses' and teachers'. Instead, the latter two often do the "right" thing and get royally fucked, with no benefit (see: COVID). Police unions seem to have the best ones out there, to our dismay at times.

Is this really a complaint about changing times or whatever cliché there is, or is it a complaint about the power of unions? I don't see the Globe believing in anyone but neoliberal, hyper-individualists, with the occasional piece about the greater good.

Per usual, with the Globe, and with these pieces, everything can be halted by someone just not playing along. So why should I care about an opinion piece like this?

5

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j217qrr wrote

What are the “new realities of policing?”

It’s paywalled so I can’t see what the proposed reforms are and how they’d impact public safety.

If someone can list them out that’d be great

1

LongjumpingCheck2638 t1_j20tddm wrote

I hate the globe as of late. Their editorial board is total garbage

5

Azr431 t1_j222bgv wrote

Someone needs to bring the hammer down on these goons. Wu has an opportunity to have a legacy by taking them on.

2

DumbshitOnTheRight t1_j208nnc wrote

This is the same Boston PD that claims it couldn't make any movement on reforms because the Chief of Police role was empty, as if they don't have a chain of command.

1

too-cute-by-half t1_j23pu3a wrote

One thing I didn't get from this editorial is how much leverage the City ultimately has. Like they say the City Council can vote down the arbitrator's decision, but then what? The cops can hold out for years without a contract, assuming they still get cost of living bumps.

1

jm9903 t1_j1zutpi wrote

More Globe spam

−1

seanhive t1_j219ylf wrote

Friendly reminder that Wu said, “Boston has always had a white problem” at the St. Patrick’s Day dinner. Overt hatred towards white men. Proceed with that as you will.

−11