Maplewood PD babysitting PSEG

In a single morning last week I saw three patrol cars and four police officers babysitting various PSEG projects around town. How is this justified? Shouldn't our Police force be patrolling rather than watching utility work?

The Officers are paid. Often, they are off-duty being paid at overtime rates.

With the way people drive around here I wouldn't do any job that required me to be in a vulnerable position on or near the street without a cop preasent.

I remember this accident on South Orange Ave...there is a reason why police are hired/used to protect utility workers

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/car_plows_into_verizon_workers.html

rags, the officers you see working with utility companies are being paid for by those companies. They also pay for the use of the patrol car as well as pay an admin fee to the town (which more often than not, puts the town ahead in terms of $$). There are plenty of tax dollar complaining you can do but this isn't one of them.

^This. And I for one am glad it's required.

Up until recently, in Jersey City, the former Police Chief's wife owned a security firm that rented out off duty police officers. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Thanks for the clarification everyone. I didn't know PSEG paid for the service. Personally, it seems like a waste of resources to me to have officers literally standing there doing nothing, but at least its paid for by PSEG.

rags1 said:
Thanks for the clarification everyone. I didn't know PSEG paid for the service. Personally, it seems like a waste of resources to me to have officers literally standing there doing nothing, but at least its paid for by PSEG.

I find it funny when someone rants about something they know nothing about.

It is all about perspective.

From a driver's seat this may seem a waste of resources.

If one were standing waist deep in a hole in the ground that restricts movement and provides no immediate egress should a car veer into the work zone, it probably seems like a sensible use of resources.

It's also a great way to augment the pay of our officers without it coming out of our wallets.

mammabear said:

rags1 said:
Thanks for the clarification everyone. I didn't know PSEG paid for the service. Personally, it seems like a waste of resources to me to have officers literally standing there doing nothing, but at least its paid for by PSEG.

I find it funny when someone rants about something they know nothing about.

A bit judgmental today, eh?

denniss said:

mammabear said:

rags1 said:
Thanks for the clarification everyone. I didn't know PSEG paid for the service. Personally, it seems like a waste of resources to me to have officers literally standing there doing nothing, but at least its paid for by PSEG.

I find it funny when someone rants about something they know nothing about.

A bit judgmental today, eh?

Nah. Just observing

Upon further reflection, this thread title is in error.

The PD does not baby-sit the utility workers.

The PD baby-sits the public to ensure they stay where they should and do not enter the defined utility work zone.

In this case the rant resulted in good information being shared and people (including me) learning something they didn't know before. So thanks to the rant, we are now courant....

I so agree with @bluepool!

And I think that the OP now understands that the police officers were hardly 'standing around doing nothing'...

rags1 said:
Thanks for the clarification everyone. I didn't know PSEG paid for the service. Personally, it seems like a waste of resources to me to have officers literally standing there doing nothing, but at least its paid for by PSEG.

It looks like nothing to you, but it is actually something.

If the OP's spouse or child worked in utility repair, we'd be hearing a very different tune, I guarantee.

susan1014 said:
If the OP's spouse or child worked in utility repair, we'd be hearing a very different tune, I guarantee.

But that is only because she doesn't know how much of a difference police presence makes. As I just said, it is something. We are here to say so.

Asking the question is very different from demanding "justification" and using terms like "babysitting" and "standing around" IMHO. And there's the rub.

I didn't think the first post was a "rant". It was more like a question from someone puzzled by seeing police officers at the PSE&G work sites. As the song says, "Let it Go".

Rags,

You asked a good question. I never gave this much thought, but I am glad to learn that PSE&G pays for the cost of protecting their workers from insane, careless or distracted drivers.

If people would just "Drive Like Their Kids Live Here" then we wouldn't have the problem.

I had a short conversation with the officer at Dunnell the other day. She spent the entire day stopping people who did not think that the red cones and barricades applied to them. Her observation was that almost none of them actually lived on the street, they were just using it as a shortcut and resented having to actually drive on Valley or Maplewood Ave.

I help arrange the High Holiday services at my shul. We get cops as security. It is a nice and very popular supplement for them. Not that I am complaining as as noted it is not being paid for by tax dollars. But keep it in mind when the police unions complain about what the police are paid. It does not tell the whole story.

Dang, I knew there had to be a union angle in this discussion.

tjohn said:
Dang, I knew there had to be a union angle in this discussion.

Right, because when people make decent money, it's an occasion to complain.

Tom_Reingold said:

tjohn said:
Dang, I knew there had to be a union angle in this discussion.

Right, because when people work extra hours in order to make decent money, it's an occasion to complain.

Fixed that for you.

Steve said:

Tom_Reingold said:

tjohn said:
Dang, I knew there had to be a union angle in this discussion.

Right, because when people work extra hours in order to make decent money, it's an occasion to complain.

Fixed that for you.