PAX Centurion - September / October 2013

Page 34 • PAX CENTURION • September/October 2013 617-989-BPPA (2772) 1910 Centre Street West Roxbury, MA 02132 617-323-5050 office 617-828-2210 cell AngelaWright248@gmail.com ANGELA WRIGHT Realtor A member of the National Association of Realtors police reached their current impasse is critical in understanding it was not because of an arbitrator. The administration, though targeting our award in the media, continues to ensure the desired lateral effect on the upcoming Fire arbitration while impugning the JLMC’s integrity and yet to be named arbitrator with the threat of a media flogging. Similar tampering with a judge or panel of jurors in an attempt to influence an outcome never mind change an already decided outcome would be looked upon quite differently by the media if it wasn’t the police or fire being targeted or the recent T, Local 589 decision. The Globe’s Joan Vennochi hits home in what could be considered a pro-police article but for her reservations about the award’s final numbers. The article questions, why the outrage over union pay raises but not over tens of millions in individual tax breaks handed out to wealthy develop- ers and corporations on demand. To paraphrase “When labor stands withWarren or Markey, its’working people fighting for their rights. When public sector unions seek parity…employees are automatically demonized as lazy, overpaid keepers of the status quo.” Those feelings will not change. Maintaining and preserving the independence of the JLMC for future resolutions is vital in realizing a balanced fairness between the parties. Safe Street Teams and IOD T hese were two issues where the City took extreme positions: IOD is easier to start with since the City withdrew its proposal for fear that the BPPA might receive the (bargained not arbi- trated) Fire package which highlighted a 6 week reprieve from light duty and IME’s (Independent Medical Examiners) etc. Attorney Ken Grace made a well-versed presentation melding the current Rule 110, with bits and pieces of the City’s proposal and key components of the existing Police and Fire policies. The City’s version could be simply described as: the Department would give consideration but make the final determination as to whether an officer would be covered IOD. Ken’s line by line, reasoned approach to middle ground was obvious enough to all that our proposal would carry the day. Key elements of the Fire policy being included in our proposal prompted the City’s withdrawal of the issue. Safe Street Teams was more complicated in that the Department went all-in on their wish-list. Seniority would be waived and all police officers would be eligible to apply for SSTPO vacancies… SSTPOs would be part of a centralized unit and detailed back to the districts… SSTPOs may be assigned on an overtime basis without resort to the district overtime list…the “low-man” principle shall not apply…so long as it is for an SST purpose. After a full vetting, the SST would be eligible for bothArea over- time and SST overtime (which would be charged to theArea overtime list). A hypothetical that encompassed a $10,000,000 dollar OT budget, with SST receiving $8,000,000 dollars for specific requests sent up a “red flag”. How was that fair and equitable to district “responding officers” if 4/5 of the overtime budget was targeted to SST special interests?Again the answer to this supposed scenario should have been definitive and convincing for a proposal so ripe for abuse. Two items that are sacrosanct in our contract were under attack, seniority and low-man principle. Could the Department ever think that this proposal would not be given a contradictory counter? The ability to manipulate was just too great. Our response from Union to City dated 4-23-13: 1. The City may implement the Safe Streets Team on a City-wide basis. The teamwill be centralized. It will not be detailed to the districts. 2. All police officers will be eligible to apply for Safe Streets Team vacancies. Selection of an officer for a Safe Streets Team assignment shall be made on the basis of seniority and qualifications. 3. Assignment to the Safe Streets Team will be voluntary. 4. Members of the Safe Streets Team will perform their duties as part of a bicycle unit. Officers assigned to the Safe Street Team will not be assigned to perform walking beats. 5. Officers assigned to the Safe StreetsTeamwill be offered overtime on the basis of a list maintained on a centralized list of the Safe Streets Team officers. 6. The Safe Streets Team will be considered part of Area F for pur- poses of detail distribution. 7. If there is a specialized need for bicycle officers, the City may assign overtime to the Safe Street Team without resort to the districts’ overtime lists. 8. Safe Streets Team members will not be counted toward shift minimums. 9. All equipment and uniform items necessary for the Safe Streets Teamwill be supplied by theCity, with no cost to the officer or deduction from the officer’s clothing allowance. 10. All police officerswill be offered additional trainingon community policing. 11. This agreement will be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement between the BPPA and the City of Boston. Deputy O’Rourke gave the most accurate presentation of the entire process on the SST deployment describing a first half in B-2. Being the largest shift in the City with approximately 24 SST members and 16 assigned on any given night he walked both parties through the assigning, assisting with calls and the “can’t be touched” status of SST officers. When addressing ratios with “responding to calls officers”, they made up approximately 22 officers, 2 of which are assigned inside. Many wondered whether the Department had the luxury of deploying approximately 40% of the busiest district’s manpower as such but that is management’s prerogative. The current deployment strategy created two distinct tiers of officers with internal resentment unavoidable. Some can use benefits freely…others are bound by the creation of overtime. Some respond to calls and some don’t. Instead of staying with the status quo the department got overly greedy with their wish list. Decision : The arbitrator determined that the SSTPO assignment would not be bound by seniority in that an officer would not have to make the shift to be considered for the SST assignment but eligibility for paid details and non-SST overtime would go throughArea F. After- effects are fairly predictable. How the Department goes forward under the SST designation is unknown. Close to achieving parity, Safe Street Teams & IOD From Vice President on page 5