Push to scrap police details is anti-union fantasy
DESPITE THE opinion of David Tuerck ("Scrap the police details," Op-ed, June 20) and the flawed studies of his Beacon Hill Institute, there is no real evidence that replacing police with flaggers will save anyone money. Tuerck builds up a series of unfounded hypothetical scenarios to "prove" how flaggers will save money: If private companies are established to provide nonunion flaggers, if those flaggers are paid significantly less than the current prevailing wage, and if the prevailing wage is then revised to account for these new, cheap flaggers, then, Tuerck imagines, flaggers will cost less than police at construction sites.
These anti-union, anti-police fantasies ignore reality. Flaggers would be hired by the construction companies themselves, unionized companies who would pay benefits and turn these costs over to whoever is paying the bill. Even if the prevailing wage for flaggers did go down, health insurance and other benefits would keep the cost high.
In contrast, the benefits of police officers are already paid by their government employers, whether or not they perform details. And having police at details increases the number of police on the street in a community without overloading government budgets. The recent MBTA crash in Canton is a perfect example: The first two police officers on the scene were working at a detail nearby.
HUGH J. CAMERON
President
Massachusetts Coalition of Police, AFL-CIO
Millbury 