The Police Department in Worcester, Mass., could serve as Exhibit A in favor of body cameras for officers.
Plagued by allegations that officers planted evidence, stole drug money and coerced sex in prostitution cases, the 450-officer department learned last November that it was facing a federal civil rights investigation like those launched in Minneapolis, Louisville, Ky., and most recently Memphis.
Elected officials in Worcester had been trying for years to put a body camera program in place, and the Police Department ran a pilot that ended in 2020. But when the city announced that the program would finally begin in earnest in February, the police unions balked, saying they wanted extra pay for wearing the recording devices.
Worcester agreed to pay each rank-and-file officer an annual stipend of $1,300, and the city’s lawyer told the City Council’s 11 members that they were “legally obligated” to approve the payments.
At the vote in May, Etel Haxhiaj, one of three councilors who opposed the stipend, said it flew in the face of the accountability people were demanding.
“I cannot imagine that when community members called for police transparency and justice, beyond body cams, that they envisioned that it would come with a reward.”
The union in Worcester was not the only police labor group looking to leverage demands for accountability. In towns and cities across the country, police unions have been asking for pay bumps for body cameras, seeking to capitalize on the growing public expectation that every encounter with the police will be recorded.
Officers in Las Vegas were among the first to win a raise that explicitly paid them to wear cameras, while unions in New York City, Seattle, Cincinnati and other cities have used body cameras as a bargaining chip in negotiations that led to significant raises. And more recently the police departments for Nassau County, N.Y., and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to $3,000 annual body camera bonuses.
“It’s literally laughable how the situation has been manipulated by the unions,” said Charles Katz, a criminologist at Arizona State University, noting that the cameras have been shown to reduce the number of misconduct complaints against officers. “Which other pieces of equipment that protect officers’ careers and lives have they charged extra for? They’re not charging extra for Kevlar vests.”
In lobbying local government officials and labor regulators, unions have argued that a pay bump compensates them for the added responsibility and loss of privacy that comes from wearing cameras. But publicly, they have said little about why officers should be paid more.
In Worcester, Officer Dan Gilbert, the union president, did not respond to attempts to reach him.
Cameras are generally activated during law enforcement operations like responding to emergency calls or conducting investigations, not during roll call or meal breaks. Some more recent models activate automatically in certain situations, such as when officers draw their guns.
The only union I’ve ever wanted dissolved is the police union.
Cities should have just defunded the police departments that refused to wear body cameras.
Agreed. They should just shut down the police department and start over in most cities. Police forces are like the only labor force that has no business being a strong union.
Why not?
They were created to keep labor from striking or standing up for themselves.
Police were not solely created to stop strikes…
Pinkerton used to hunt down runaway slaves. Police are what that practice evolved into.
Northern cities had police forces that did not originate with the Pinkertons. The structure of modern policing largely comes from the Pinkertons but the goals go back centuries more of constables and nightwatchmen
“The structure of modern policing largely comes from the Pinkertons”
“Police are what that practice (pinkertons) evolved into.”
These points don’t disagree.
I just had a weird idea. What if we flip it. Pay cops more. Better vacations, more support. Sure pay them for the cameras, call it whatever. Tax the rich and pay these working class people that kinda seem to be exploited. Maybe they’d be less angry and less likely to take it out on us.
Isn’t their pay absolute crap? Like, I don’t have a problem setting a minimum salary of $65k for cops and teachers too. I’m pretty sure the averages are well below this. I guess it never occurred to me to think that some cops are facing food and living security issues themselves if they have a family and barely make $35k.
Isn’t their pay absolute crap?
No, it really isn’t in most places. Average in the US is over $61k and in places like CA, it’s over $100k.
I live in Kansas, where the cost of living is relatively low compared to the rest of the country. 1st year officers make $59k. They best paid officers are paid $89k. Plus very good benefits.
No, pay for cops is quite reasonable and in some cases exorbitant because of how they can rack up overtime. They are paid plenty well. It’s the training, oversight, and discipline that are lacking.
They also get great benefits and get to retire early with an actual pension. It’s a pretty cushy job already.
My city starts pay for cops at $70k. You have to pass the academy, during which you get the pay and benefits, but all you need to apply is a high school diploma and no record. Pretty good pay to me.
Cops actually make a very good salary for a “unskilled” job. They’re paid well above the average income in all but the most affluent areas. Not uncommon for average police income to be over 100k. They often get to rack up a ton of BS overtime pay which is some of it. Most cities require you hire a police officer who will get paid overtime on your dime for security or to direct traffic at certain events. They often get the OT pay and don’t even show up, or just nap in their car the whole time… It’s great.
The police in America are the well paid class traitors who get to beat on us for the rich. They throw them enough bones to keep them going. It’s all working as intended.
You’re right. The median appears to be around 50-60k which is pretty good. I thought they were much lower. I guess scrap that idea. Seems like they got inflation-adjusted wages over the past 20 years while the rest of us just got inflation and a smaller box of cookies.
Yup, police unions show us how effective unions are… Good pay that keeps pace with inflation. Advancement opportunities, pension, good healthcare. Oh, and you get to beat people to a pulp whenever you feel like getting a paid vacation.
I can’t say fornthe rest of the country but Seattle pays its officers well and we still have to deal with crap from them.
Just moved here last year and am a white guy so obviously my experience is gonna be different, but while the cops here still suck, I have noticed them to be far less visible and prevalent than in the south where I lived for 35 years
Where Im at the police and fire make much more than the typical person. Teachers not so much but they still do better than the typical person. Would not mind all the city workers being on the same pay scale whatever they do. Maybe hazard pay but for that to kick in you have to be shot at before shooting your own piece or as a fire fighter go into a burning building at least once that particular month.
Police: “Okay, I’ll start following the law… but it’s gonna cost you.”
A lot less than lawsuits and payouts to victims families though if it keeps the cops from thinking they can maim/kill with impunity though.
I would also argue that bodycam off, inactive or data lost is admissible evidence.
The benefit should be that cops and precincts who use body cameras would get a better price on their liability insurance (which cops would be required to carry).
So give them their raise, and then charge them the same amount every time their camera isn’t recording when it’s supposed to be.
No… that should result in them being fired.
And depending on the circumstances charge them with obstruction or mishandling evidence
Imagine if they turned off the camera and the suspect died resulting in the cop automatically being declared guilty. The only evidence that they could present to defend themselves would be that camera footage and anything obtained while being filmed. That “oops the camera died at a convenient time my bad” garbage would stop real fast.
Let’s just take it out if their ‘we need an armored vehicle for some reason’ budget.
Cash in some of the fucking tanks you’ve got.
I’m reasonably confident that the cost to outfit officers with body cams and to give them all raises so they play ball would be significantly less than tax payers already cover in terms of police abuse settlements (ignoring the other benefits of making officers accountable for their actions).
You want extra pay for wearing a body camera? How about don’t wear one, and you’re on your own defending yourself from false accusations.
Body cameras are good for everyone, including the officers that wear them.
This is the correctest answer imo. Make the cameras optional but that any liability coverage the department has will only kick in for interactions that are recorded. All officers accused of unnecessary brutality or breaking the law in an unrecorded interaction will be put on unpaid leave until the investigation is concluded, and any officers involved will split any civil liability.
Ask the residents of Antioch and Pittsburgh California if police need body cams.
Read the full reports at the bottom. Antioch had to suspend literally half its police force.
I don’t think anyone here or in the article is defending what the police are claiming
I know. I guess I’m just shouting into the void. It’s frustrating that body cams aren’t just universally required.
It’s so frustrating watching the most effective unions in the country do all the things Republicans demonize unions for, while being supported by Republicans.
Well it’s only fair, now they have to pay the hookers and join a boxing gym; they used to get those activities for free.
Ouch.
I mean, you aren’t wrong
But the hand me down war zone outfitted Armored Personnel Carrier they bought definitely didn’t.
I think the article raises a good point. Charge them a $1300 annual fee or no Kevlar vests.
No accountability via cameras then no immunity…
Now that is an interesting take, actually. If they “forgot” to activate the camera and an issue arises, they should not get qualified legal immunity, because they left out key evidence.
If only union negotiations were so easy
Y’know what could save even more than not paying for body cams? … Not paying for cops.
That might even cut down on the amount of abuse they dish out!
Why the fuck a raise to where cameras? If it’s a new part of their uniform it should just be expected. Also they don’t like being on camera but at my old job I was on camera every second of the day and had to have equipment with me and I had no raise for specifically this.
I also understand the cameras themselves cost money but how can these be that expensive really. And even if they were I wouldn’t care anyway, they need them imo
Yeah funniest thing to me was when body cams were starting out… I heard people say “Would you ever imagine being on camera during your work day?”, hell have you ever looked at the camera feeds from a gas station or grocery store, you’ll notice that the cameras have a much higher focus on watching the staff rather then focusing on getting a good view of robbers or shoplifters, Almost every job has you either on camera most of the time. If you aren’t you most likely are in a setup where the boss walks past you regularly.