On details, who's insensitive?

AS GOVERNOR PATRICK tries to curtail costly and unnecessary paid police details at construction sites, he encountered this response: "In my 25 years of law enforcement in this state, I have never worked with a more insensitive and arrogant administration that is simply unwilling to listen on this issue. In a labor-friendly state like Massachusetts, it's outrageous that the administration would try to implement a policy that trumps labor's well-established . . . bargaining rights." This came not from a union boss, but from Arlington Police Chief Frederick Ryan. He is also a spokesman for the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs, which represents police chiefs in the state's largest communities.

In Massachusetts, being "labor-friendly" trumps being taxpayer-friendly.

At issue is a provision in new Patrick administration regulations intended to cut down on police details. It would have allowed local details to continue at all state-supervised work sites if a local labor contract or municipal ordinance required it.

As reported by the Globe, local unions were scrambling to exploit the provision and protect the details before the rules take effect Oct. 3; Patrick was right to stop them from subverting his goal.

Meanwhile, the reaction from opponents shows how complex the resistance to change can be.

In this case, opposition comes not only from police officers who benefit from the lucrative detail pay, but also from police chiefs and mayors who see the state-funded details as a way to keep money flowing into their cities and towns from a source other than their own municipal budgets.

The Patrick administration says it has been working with all parties to achieve fair reform. "We asked labor to come in from the beginning. They have been part of the discusssion on a regular basis for months," said Doug Rubin, the governor's chief of staff. "Some of the regulations take a lot of suggestions from them."

Indeed, Rubin contends that the move to eliminate the provision allowing details if a local contract or ordinance required it was at least partly a response to concerns advanced by some labor representatives. "There was pushback from labor against having a two-tier system . . . Now, everyone plays by the same rules," he said.

The police unions and chiefs have it backward. There's nothing insensitive, arrogant, or outrageous about asking everyone to play by the same rules and saving taxpayer money as a result. What the Patrick administration is seeking is called reform. What opponents want is the selfish status quo.