News   May 16, 2024
 594     1 
News   May 16, 2024
 833     1 
News   May 16, 2024
 603     0 

Why do police have to stand at construction sites?

when I first came to Toronto, I couldn't see the reasoning behind having officers at construction sites. I think a basic security company would suffice, but, an armed officer?

There's a world of difference between the two. Hired security has no more rights than you or I do to make an arrest or foil a burglar. However when it comes to standing there at a construction site you're right, there's no need to overpay someone to simply monitor a site and direct the pedestrian traffic around it. A $20/hour general purpose security guy with a radio link to the police makes much more fiscal sense.
 
when I first came to Toronto, I couldn't see the reasoning behind having officers at construction sites. I think a basic security company would suffice, but, an armed officer?
Why would they even need a security officer? In a few situations where we Torontonians would have $65/hr police, the Calgarians seem to get by with pylons, at $0/hr.
 
So... how many people who've posted here have actually been working on a road in Toronto (or any of the GTA for that matter), focusing on what they are doing, and completely vulnerable to traffic?? Has anyone actually experienced how assinine and oblivious many drivers are when going around construction sites?

There are different levels of traffic control available, and yes - there are contracting companies. Their hourly wages may be far less, but the people trained to do the job are also FAR less qualified than a cop - they have taken a multi-day course in order to get their certification for pyloning and traffic control only. A cop has far more extensive training... They are prepared to deal with a number of situations, and have the option of TICKETING drivers who blatantly disregard your site.

Furthermore, similar to the cop, you don't hire an individual to come and stand at your site - you usually hire a company to do the pylons (which yes, also requires training to do properly!), the safety equipment itself (pylons, road signs, flashing lights, a truck with signs to park in the way, etc. - there are road bylaws governing which must be used in different circumstances, right down to the number of pylons, spacing between, and patterns for achieving different detours), you pay for all of the above.

In my field, even for simple jobs in parking lots you always send out two-men crews so that there's one person to work, and one to watch for traffic. In fact, most of our clients require it. I've been in a near-empty parking lot, entirely in the open, surrounded by a ring of pylons, with a co-worker holding a large CAUTION! sign, and had a car back out on top of the pylons and crush our $10,000 equipment. Only being aware and jumping out of the way prevented us from injury or worse. In a parking lot, not even a road with plenty of other distractions for drivers not to mention greater speed!

It's easy to sit by, look at a site, and seeing someone standing around consider that they are of little value. However, when you have 2-3 workers who are exposed to traffic, that $67 divided amongst them, and each of their lives potentially made a little safer.. Well, I always consider that it's worth it. And for companies that don't... while there are cases where it is excessive, perhaps you should be asking about the quality standards that make a company unwilling to shell out a bit of extra cash to maintain a high safety standard for their workers??

As for the comment about OT (or pay-duty) being a perk for cops.. Are you saying that we should all work OT for the same hourly wage, because it's basically a perk that we have the option to collect on extra hours?? Yeah, it's a lot more, but the standard for overtime in many firms is time-and-a-half over 40 hours and double time on Sundays/Holidays. They work stressful jobs that do have a higher risk potential than say, teachers, real estate agents, what-have-you. There need to be some perks to keep people signing up for an otherwise rather thankless job. And if it's a lot more in Toronto... Well, duh! It's the country's biggest city, with the highest crime rates. Cops here have to regularly face the worst aspects of the job, not just giving parking tickets on Main St of Smalltown, ON. Yeah, lots of people would volunteer for standing around doing road duty for $67 - but not a lot of people will deliberately walk into dangerous and frequently horrifying situations for $100, much less $30-something.

And really, if you're going to get into the cops on-site being a gouge for taxpayers.. Why not go after any one of a million other things first? What about the safety meetings every single day that workers are charging for? The fact that PPE is often worked into billing costs to help companies save on overhead? The hours of total time spent clipping in and out of fall arrest on that slim, slim chance that you might actually fall?

Fact is, safety precautions are there to make people's jobs... safer. They can be a pain, time-consuming, and costly. But lost lives, injuries, etc. come at a far higher cost. I'd happily dish out my tax money for 100,000 cops to stand useless if it meant that ONE accident was averted.
 
When you apply for your permits to the City to work in the street you have to advise them of your traffic plan. This is how you plan on controlling the flow of traffic and worker / public safety. The City will not approve your permits unless you advise that Toronto Police or a company like Barricade (BTS) will be doing traffic control since they both have certification from the traffic mangement courses they take. It then comes down to money because TPS is cheaper per hour than a Barricade crash truck and labour on-site. Also, if a city inspector happens to drop by and you are not following your outlined traffic plan you will get hit with a nasty fine from the OHSA. When it comes down to it Toronto Police is the best route for the contractors.
 
And really, if you're going to get into the cops on-site being a gouge for taxpayers..
Who is saying it is a gouge for taxpayers? When companies do this, they pay for the service. If the police were smart they'd make a small profit on it.
 
As for the comment about OT (or pay-duty) being a perk for cops.. Are you saying that we should all work OT for the same hourly wage, because it's basically a perk that we have the option to collect on extra hours?? Yeah, it's a lot more, but the standard for overtime in many firms is time-and-a-half over 40 hours and double time on Sundays/Holidays.
Yes, this is most definitely a perk. It's not regular police work, but low stress, high pay work that is in high demand from police... because it is such a lucrative perk.


And really, if you're going to get into the cops on-site being a gouge for taxpayers.. Why not go after any one of a million other things first?
So basically your argument is everyone-else-bilks-the-system-so-why-shouldn't-they?
 
I have no issues with having police at construction sites, it assists with traffic, extra police presence in areas where there would otherwise be limited presence, etc. However, if this is required at all construction sites that impact traffic and construction projects and traffic (last I checked) are ongoing, maybe they should hire extra police and move this into the regular shift rotation so that the police are just being paid regular rate. Still have the contractor pay for the police officer and funnel the money back into the police force budget.

As an aside in some of the pictures from the Star article they showed the "Paid duty" police with Toronto Hydro. One of the Toronto Hydro employees working in the picture is a family friend. His entire crew that day was actually called in on O/T and was being paid a lot more then the TPS officer was being paid at that time.
 
Yes, this is most definitely a perk. It's not regular police work, but low stress, high pay work that is in high demand from police... because it is such a lucrative perk.

So basically your argument is everyone-else-bilks-the-system-so-why-shouldn't-they?

You've mostly brushed over the main agruments in my post. The question accompanying the comment about perks was whether you consider that all OT is a perk, given that in many industries it is a lucrative option that makes it worthwhile to do a job that might otherwise have had insufficient wages. Furthermore, my point was that even if it's going to be labelled a perk, I think it's a necessary benefit of that particular job, like life insurance would be. Police are generally doing high-stress, high-danger jobs. If you had to spend your days meeting abused kids, raped women, mangled masses of bodies leftover from car accidents, and the low-lifes of Toronto what would it take for you to keep getting up and going to work everyday? What would you have to be providing for your wife and kids to make the risk that you may not be there one day worth it? And turn that around, what is it worth for you to keep them out there protecting you and yours? Not to mention what the workers on site consider worth it to increase their safety. If they didn't have this, there would need to be a significant increase in hourly pay to make it a worthwhile risk. In that case, taxpayers would bear the entire cost of that benefit, rather than private industry sharing some.

And as to the latter, no - my argument is quite clearly stated at the end, indicating the necessity, albeit costly, inconvenient, etc., of ensuring the safety of people who are doing a potentially risky job. The quote you pulled was a sardonic observation that while you're making demands for others' safety to be reduced in order that the city and as a result taxpayers save a comparably small amount, why not go for the whole package deal and remove all of the excessive costs of safety. A crew of five people at $30 per hour, spending an hour on a safety meeting every morning at site... You could save $150 per day right there. Again, sardonic.
 
Last edited:
Who is saying it is a gouge for taxpayers? When companies do this, they pay for the service. If the police were smart they'd make a small profit on it.

If you read through the thread, there are numerous references to the cost ultimately coming out of taxpayers' pockets in the instances where it is city work, and the city (therefore taxpayers) has to pay for the police. And I agree, there are enough private projects out there with companies willing to pay for it, and I think police are justified in taking advantage of it when it's available to them.
 
Even if you're claiming that O/T is a perk (and if you're claimining it for one field, I don't see how you can not suggest it for all people getting O/T), I think it's a necessary benefit of that particular job. The field work I do includes lots of O/T hours, meals covered depending on the hours we're working, etc. If I worked a 40 hour week on my standard hourly wage, it would be a low amount, but having overtime is how the industry keeps us working for them. Police are generally doing high-stress, high-danger jobs. If you had to spend your days meeting abused kids, raped women, mangled masses of bodies leftover from car accidents, and the low-lifes of Toronto, what would it take for you to keep doing it? What would you have to be providing for your wife and kids to make the risk that you may not be there one day worth it? And turn that around, what is it worth for you to keep them out there protecting you and yours? Not to mention what the workers on site consider worth it to increase their safety.

And no, my argument for one is not that they are unjustified in what is charged, and moreover was sardonically observing that while you're making demands for others' safety to be reduced in order that the city and as a result taxpayers save a comparably small amount, why not go for the whole package deal and remove all of the excessive costs of safety. A crew of five people at $30 per hour, spending an hour on a safety meeting every morning at site... You could save $150 per day right there. Again, sardonic.
This is what I call after-the-fact reasoning - rationalizing the status quo. That status quo... It's a powerful force isn't it? It should be noted that police in other jurisdictions did NOT have this perk, but they weren't quitting in droves. However, they demanded this perk, because it was easy money that only some in the police had access to. Fantino obliged by spreading around the wealth.

Also, standing at such sites is NOT part of the job of the police force. We don't pay policemen in regular hours to do this. I don't blame the police per se. If I were a policeman, I'd most definitely do this as it's easy money. I think part of the problem here is the nanny state laws.
 
Last edited:
If you read through the thread, there are numerous references to the cost ultimately coming out of taxpayers' pockets in the instances where it is city work, and the city (therefore taxpayers) has to pay for the police. And I agree, there are enough private projects out there with companies willing to pay for it, and I think police are justified in taking advantage of it when it's available to them.
Does this happen much with city projects? I've seen this much more often on private projects than city projects.
 
Paid duty policing costs taxpayers millions: audit report

Unnecessarily strict rules for employing paid duty police officers are costing Toronto taxpayers as much as $2 million each year, a city audit has found.

The official findings won’t be released for weeks, but a draft copy obtained by the Star recommends reviewing some “debatable” permit criteria, particularly for road work.

“When construction takes place close to a signalized intersection, there are certainly situations where a paid duty officer would be needed to direct traffic,” the report says. “However, there are also situations where the use of warning signs, barriers and other devices … would be sufficient.”

The auditor’s findings mirror those of a December 2009 Star investigation that found private companies, taxpayers and community groups were forced to waste millions of dollars hiring paid duty officers for jobs that could be done by crossing guards or even pylons.

“If you want to find ‘gravy,’ look there,” former city budget chief Shelley Carroll has said of the paid duty program.

After the Star stories appeared, the Toronto Police Services Board asked the city auditor to review the program.


--

At a time when Toronto is cutting bus routes and closing libraries, the city can’t afford not to overhaul the program, said Councillor Adam Vaughan, a former police board member.

“I don’t think the city has ever had the courage to look at it, because it would mean literally taking money off the table for police officers.” Some, Vaughan added, have come to rely on paid duty as part of their salary.

“Some officers take advantage of it and work very hard and they’re doing it by the book, (but) if there are alternative ways that can provide safety, we need to do it.”


--

$29 million: Income from police paid-duty fees in 2009

27%: Percentage of those fees paid by the city’s own agencies, boards, commissions and corporations

56%: Percentage of all paid duty assignments devoted to traffic control, which the auditor found may be excessive

$2 million: How much the city could save by making criteria for permits more effective

40,919: The number of paid duty assignments Toronto officers worked in 2009

$65: The hourly rate Toronto officers make on paid duty, nearly double a typical constable’s rate
 
So Fact is, safety precautions are there to make people's jobs... safer. They can be a pain, time-consuming, and costly. But lost lives, injuries, etc. come at a far higher cost. I'd happily dish out my tax money for 100,000 cops to stand useless if it meant that ONE accident was averted.

But the vast majority arent. People like you with your silly "if it saves just one life..." argument are the reason Ford got elected. Spending big $$$ to idiot proof everything is insane. No wonder taxes are so high today.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top