on the waterfront
http://www.boston.com/news/local/article…
A longshoreman admitted in Suffolk Superior Court yesterday that he put his 4-year-old son on the Massport payroll in 2004 as a heavy equipment operator
Only in Massachusetts.
…or Rhode Island.
…or New Jersey….
Lee hung his head and spoke in a monotone voice as he pleaded guilty to fraud and larceny charges before Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margaret Hinkle.
“You acknowledge that you caused your son, Brendan V. Lee, to be placed on the payroll?” Hinkle asked the South Shore resident.
“Yes,” said Lee, who has five children ranging in age from 19 months to 9 years old.
Hinkle sentenced Lee to two years probation, four weeks of home confinement on the weekend…
So…for stealing from the taxpayers, he has to spend four weekends at home.
…that’s his complete and total punishment?
No mention is made that wages “earned” by his son have to be repaid.
Lee, according to Assistant Attorney General James H. O’Brien, collected $8,000 from the state Committee for Public Counsel Services for representing indigents when he also collected the unemployment benefits in late 2002 and early 2003.
Wait… this longshoreman is a lawyer ?!?!
After sentencing, Lee referred questions to his lawyer, Michael P. Doolin. “I have tremendous respect for him,” Doolin said of Lee. “He acknowledged in court that he made a mistake. Brendan Lee is a wonderful guy.”
It’s pretty easy, I imagine, to “acknowledge that you made a mistake” when you’ve been arrested and standing in court, defending yourself, and trying to minimize your punishment.
A true change of heart would be if the guy had stopped committing crimes before the handcuffs went on.
O’Brien yesterday asked that Lee be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment at the Suffolk County House of Correction with a 2 1/2-year suspended sentence afterwards
Sounds appropriate.
an idea the judge rejected.
Of course. This is Massachusetts, where a predatory transsexual can hold a knife to a child’s throat and try to rape him, and be allowed to walk by the judge.
Prosecutors said in court papers the scheme that Lee and others used did not generate cash, but was designed to position the children in seniority ranks if they chose to work with the ILA as adults.
Ah, OK. So he wasn’t cheating the taxpayers; he was just cheating his fellow longshoreman: preparing to steal their “days”.
A Massport spokesman, Matthew Brelis, said the agency has put “internal controls” into place to “prevent such abuse from occurring again.”
Yeah, I’m sure that the waterfront is now rendered pristine.
Brelis said Massport now prepares the timesheets, as opposed to the ILA, and that workers have to individually sign for their checks.
I’m sure the longshoremen will never find a way to work around that.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Unless Patrick O’Brian was making it up, (some? many?) British naval officers did this in the 18th and 19th centuries.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Only in Massachusetts./ …or Rhode Island./ …or New Jersey….
Or the Royal Navy.
The most colorful figure in Nelson’s navy, admiral in three other navies as well and real-life model for Lucky Jack Aubrey, was guilty of exactly the same offense as a child, as were at least a quarter of his peers. To evaluate the seriousness, I’d want more information about the “immemorial usages of the sea” with regard to nepotism in the ILA. On its face, the embezzlement of unemployment benefits sounds more serious than the seniority diddle, but cappabar is always situational ethics, so who knows?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Oops. Apology to dff; I didn’t read the comments before posting. Just as he says.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
[quote comment="107361"] cappabar is always situational ethics, so who knows?[/quote]
Yes, we’re down with cappabar by now.
It seems to me that this explanation doesn’t help the moral situation: the longshoreman was privileging his kids, not at the expense of the government, but at the expense of the other longshoreman’s families. It’d be interesting to hear what’s said about this in the union hall…
December 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I do agree he got off light, but I still don’t understand his motive – to document that his child had been working a long time, so when the kid turns 18, he starts work at a senior level? Doesn’t make too much sense to me. He probably would’ve been better off using his oldest son’s identity – I used to have love for Boston…
December 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
That’s OK Joshua – I know my comments aren’t usually gripping must-reads. I mostly just want Travis to remember I’m reading, so he knows what not to bother to tell me at lunch. ;-)
I just learned about Cochrane myself a few weeks ago – quite an enterprising guy.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
[quote comment="107368"]I do agree he got off light, but I still don’t understand his motive – to document that his child had been working a long time, so when the kid turns 18, he starts work at a senior level? Doesn’t make too much sense to me. He probably would’ve been better off using his oldest son’s identity – I used to have love for Boston…[/quote]
The deal is (and I learned this from watching season 2 of the HBO series “The Wire”) that work is intermittent, but the demand for working days is constant…so there has to be some rationing scheme. The more senior you are, the earlier you get picked to work a job. So if one ship comes in, all the Z-series (most senior) people get called to work. If two ships come in, the Z-series and the Y-series people get called. Etc. “Promotion” is by time on the books.
So, his son would be G series, or somesuch, on his first day, meaning that he’d get lots more work than the other 18 year olds.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Wow – I, too, clicked the comments button planning to drop an O’Brian reference. Probably by the time I submit this form I’ll have been beaten to it by another of the regulars.
If this is a customary practice, the other present-day longshoremen – and their kids – are probably OK with it. The people getting screwed are the guys whose fathers aren’t on the docks.