Police investigate possible overtime scam at BPL

Overtime and details are the same. Details are paid at overtime rates. Regardless of who pays the money the assignments are coordinated by the police department and are fundamentally based upon the occupation of police officer. Because the work is paid at overtime rates, must be done outside of regular paid time and can only be done by police, this makes the detail overtime in fact if not in name overtime work. To distinguish the two concepts of detail and overtime is false distinction. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

The worst part, the immoral aspect is demonstrated via the requirement of details to acquire city permits. This makes the city government and police department guilty of racketeering since the denial of permits based on the refusal to pay for details derives from a cooperative effort between two governmental entities to demand money (for work that itself is dubious) to force other entities to pay for details in order to receive permit for work regulated work. Permits which are a right; but permits which can be withheld if individuals who provide no real service are not paid a money (for what amounts to just standing around and doing nothing, or worse, sitting in their vehicles watching video on the cell phones). While I can not find source that connects permits with details my experience with architects has taught me that that if a homeowner wants work done and any activity involves the street then a detail is required. Otherwise the homeowner will not receive a permit.

Further proof are the large buildings rising downtown. The building at the end of Beach St. when the front was complete but internal work was still on going nevertheless would have 4 officers standing in front enjoying each other's company but for what other purpose outside of working a detail? None most likely. The same applied to the Seaport complex near the Federal Courthouse. Particularly shameful was when police detail officers did not do their job of flagging (which is the ostensible reason) and wind up forcing lower paid construction workers to do the flagging work.

A union contract does not make the action right. Unnecessary overtime pay are details forced upon anyone doing work. If the detail is not included permits are not authorized. The net effect is extortion. Extortion is a moral evil. A contract does not negate the immorality of the requirement.

If as a local society the decision is to give police and firefighters these opportunities to earn extra money, not by virtue of needing their services, but as requirement of contracts (which is admitted in your argument) then to deny the opportunity to other city employees is another wrong. Police and firefighters have no justification for requiring these kinds of overtime.

The reference to the four hour minimum however is interesting. Earlier in your argument you implied that details are not overtime (which I obviously disagree with). However, when you reference four hour minimums you are implying that details are overtime. So the implied confusion that I am confusing the two concepts itself shows up on the final paragraph of your response.

Can't have it both ways.

A few facts:

From a Boston Globe article dated June 21, 2017. "Lieutenant Detective Michael McCarthy, a department spokesman, said the four-hour requirement “is a contractual obligation that was bargained for between the city and the police unions over 20 years ago.”

In other words the four hour minimum is not based on standard labor law, but on a contract stipulation. I've never worked overtime that was paid at a four hour minimum. Please cite that is a legal requirement.

Facts and logic prove that details are bad. They are unnecessary and are burdens. Their implementation is unfair and they result in structural discrimination against other city employees. When a cop is on a detail the officer is shaming the Boston police force by acting in a way that above both ethical and moral behavior, by acting in a way that is a genteel but still effective way of demanding protection money. While a criminal's protection money derives from the implied threat to do harm, a detail's demand for protection money derives from the implied threat that the building owner, etc. will not be able to do their work until the money is paid.

Summary: Not all overtime are details. But most if not all details are overtime.

There is legitimate police overtime. When bona fide protection is the issue as in demonstrations where there is a possibility of violence. That should not be classified as detail work.

But work that has nothing to do with public safety, is based upon the uniform and a contract requirement, which adds unnecessary expense, regardless of the name, is wrong.

When is the next Public Meeting of our Library Board? https://www.bpl.org/about-us/board-of-trustees/