The View From Prospect Hill

After three years without a contract, the patrolmen’s union vote on the first reasonable proposal to be presented to them. Most of those involved don’t quite understand the complexities involved in trying to negotiate union contracts with municipalities, so to get to this point has been a frustratingly long and time consuming process. It’s been a long time coming.

The men and women who comprise this union put themselves in harm’s way every day and they deserve an equitable contract that will protect them and their families if something should happen to them while on the job.

In Somerville, police can find themselves facing off against dangerous gunmen one moment and resolving family disputes the next. They deserve not only our respect, but the respect of City Hall.

The administration should be proud that they could finally produce a proposal worthy to be brought before the union to vote on, whether it is accepted or not, because it’s a step in the right direction and it shows that both sides are finally moving past petty bickering and being serious.

Comments

[Overpaid cops]

Isn't MA the ONLY state in which EVERY piece of public work requires to have a policeman watching? (Answer is YES). So, yes, cops face dangerous gunmen in a war zone like Somerville, but they probably spend even more time chatting with construction workers and whatnot. And these days, we can all see how much BS construction (basically undoing what was done a few months earlier and making sure it will have to be redone in a couple of years) is going on around here; just check out Somerville Ave, if you haven't. If we have a budget crisis, I'd say make sure overpaid cop's time is not wasted watching workers replace a goddamn sewage pipe.

[Safest Roads]

MA also has the safest roads, according to a recently released federal study.

So yet again MA is a head of the pack.

[Bill Shelton]

Safest Roads,

Could you share this study with us? Because the data that I am looking at say that Massachusetts has the highest accident rate per thousand drivers, and the highest property loss rate due to accidents in the U.S. It would be of, at least, intellectual interest to me to try to square these two sources.

[Democracy]

I second Bill's request. But probably this is another hit and run post.

[Bill Shelton]

That said, I agree with your larger point, George. I don't know enough to understand the complexties of the final contract arrangements. But I do hope that those on the front line of seeking justice have finally found some economic justice for themselves.

[Go Figure]

Bill,
Allow me to help. I'm familiar with that study.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/06/29/news/state/30-roads.txt

or for the locally minded,

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2007/06/28/study_road_conditions_have_improved_while_congestion_fatalities_got_worse/

"...with 2.3 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Massachusetts roads were the safest, with a death rate of 0.8.
."

[Clancy Wiggum]

Uh, oh Democracy!

More facts for you to misconstrue.

[Democracy]

Thanks, but the URL is chopped. It does not look like a federal study as, it was funded by a Libertarian think tank.

[Bill Shelton]

Thank you, Go Figure. The link that your provided was fascinating. Equally so to me is your familiarity with a Billings, Montanna publication, although saying that probably just emphasizes that I came to consciousness long before the digital age.

It's also interesting to me that the study was published by a Libertarian think tank. Although I don't consider myself to be a Libertarian, I find them to be freer of hypocrisy than many who participate in the public dialog.

So here's my hypothuesis on how to square these two data sources. Because, where Massachusetts traffic is densest, it travels on roads that wrere first built in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, we have more accidents and more property damage. But for the same reason, drivers cannot achieve the speeds that would produce more fatalities that elsewhere. Hmmmm. Sounds good to me.

[No Problem Here]

I didn't have any problem with the URL and neither did you if you know who funded the study. Does that matter? Are the facts wrong? Aren't Libertarians cconcerned with the expansion of personal rights, just like Progressives?

Also, Safest Roads said it was a "federal study," not "Federal," I think the word 'national' might have been more appropriate but I don't know for sure.

[Bill Shelton]

Yes.

[Go Figure]

C'mon Bill,
I think that's what Chief Wiggum meant when he talked about mis-constuing the facts.

[Democracy]

Of course, Go Figure is not familiar with anything, he just did a quick Google search. But thanks anyway. The second URL is chopped, as I said.

[Bill Shelton]

I think that I"ve lost the thread here. I thought that we were all agreeing. But that's probably just my naive wishful thinking that we all get along.

[Democracy]

Probably, the opposite could be demonstrated by using some other criteria (e.g., number of disabling injuries). I don't know what the study wants to demonstrate, but anything coming from a think tank with a political agenda is suspicious (including Progressive ones, whatever that means).

[Go Figure]

Bill,
I'm here to exchange information as always. You and I do not, and never have, had a problem. My comment to you was made with a chuckle on my end. Why Democracy wants to argue with me at midnight I have no idea. I won't take the bait, however.

I'm all for differences of opionion, Bill.

[Clancy Wiggum]

If you haven't Figured it out, Democracy fights with everyone.

Just another person who can't get along with anyone and comes here to fight with others.

[Democracy]

As I said, the second URL is chopped. As I also said, I'm skeptical about the conclusions of the study. Take that as a duel challenge if you wish. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of reality.

[Clancy Wiggum]

"your interpretation of reality."

Case in point.