Firefighter's widow will not get benefits.....

[DizBelle]

Story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/widow-fallen-arizona-hotshot-firefighter-seeks-death-benefits/

My guess is that "they" were right in that Perhaps there was a communication issue in your marriage.

I'd bet that he knew exactly what his status was and what he and his family would be entitled to (or not entitled to) should something bad happen. There's probably a document somewhere with his signature on it stating as much. It's extremely unfortunate but it is what he agreed to when he signed up for the job.

 

[Arielle22]

I work in HR and frequently employees do not understand their benefits or status.

If the benefits are paid via an insurance policy or health insurance policy, then the city's hands are tied. They have to abide by the terms of the policies.

 

[Handbag Lady]

Story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/widow-fallen-arizona-hotshot-firefighter-seeks-death-benefits/

My guess is that "they" were right in that ‘Perhaps there was a communication issue in your marriage.’

I'd bet that he knew exactly what his status was and what he and his family would be entitled to (or not entitle to) should something bad happen. There's probably a document somewhere with his signature on it stating as much. It's extremely unfortunate but it is what he agreed to when he signed up for the job.

That is an awful, awful thing to say to a widow. We hire seasonally here and no, those people are not entitled to the full benefits that a full-timer would have, regardless of how many hours they work in a given time.

Still. You NEVER say anything like that to or about a widow. The article does say that the fallen firemen not covered were promised a retro, but now it legally cannot be done.

It doesn't matter if the widow knew or not (obviously she SHOULD have known) but after-the-fact it is crass to speak in this manner. The person who said that in the article should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[DizBelle]

That is an awful, awful thing to say to a widow. We hire seasonally here and no, those people are not entitled to the full benefits that a full-timer would have, regardless of how many hours they work in a given time.

Still. You NEVER say anything like that to or about a widow. The article does say that the fallen firemen not covered were promised a retro, but now it legally cannot be done.

It doesn't matter if the widow knew or not (obviously she SHOULD have known) but after-the-fact it is crass to speak in this manner. The person who said that in the article should be ashamed of themselves.

That quote is what the widow said they told her. I'm not sure who "they" are but it is also likely that what was actually said was much more sensitive and she just took it this way.

 

[wiigirl]

Sad

 

[DizBelle]

Sad

Agreed. Given the 4 children and given his line of work, I hope they were smart enough to get a hefty life insurance policy.

ETA - sorry, I don't know how old the children are just that one is 18 months.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

That's nice. Her husband lays down his life for them and all she gets from them is a rude comment.

 

[Schmeck]

She is receiving over $300,000, according to the article. That should be enough for her to be a stay-at-home mom for over 3 years, and then her youngest will be of school age and she can find employment, can't she? If her husband was working part-time, was she working?

Edited to add that the article states that she will also get 'worker's compensations'. What's that?

 

[DizBelle]

That's nice. Her husband lays down his life for them and all she gets from them is a rude comment.

We don't know what they actually said.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/widow-fallen-arizona-hotshot-firefighter-seeks-death-benefits/

My guess is that "they" were right in that Perhaps there was a communication issue in your marriage.

I'd bet that he knew exactly what his status was and what he and his family would be entitled to (or not entitled to) should something bad happen. There's probably a document somewhere with his signature on it stating as much. It's extremely unfortunate but it is what he agreed to when he signed up for the job.

Sounds fine to me. He was hired as seasonal.

I guess now we need more government in our lives, eh? If you are in a high risk job then I suppose we have to have the spouse sign off on it?

You wonder where the red tape comes from? From stuff like this.

 

[RitaE]

That is incredibly rough for the family but I can pretty well bet that Human Resources explained his benefits to him and it went in one ear and out the other. I'm not saying that to be mean, it is just the way people operate. My husband is educated out the wazoo and if somebody were to ask him about his pension plan and life insurance tonight they'd get the blankest of blank looks. He signs where he's told and puts it out of his mind.

In my experience very few people adequately consider life insurance. My husband was fairly perturbed years ago when I told him the policy provided by his employer wasn't adequate and he had to get more.

 

[CPT Tripss]

This is what happens when employers manipulate the system to keep workers who work 40 hours a week year round from attaining "full time permanent" status. It's happening to more and more workers.

The story at this link http://www.wildfirex.com/2013/08/06...-mountain-hot-shots-will-receive-in-benefits/ and related stories are worthwhile reading.

 

[FireDancer]

I suspect this is a story that has been sensationalized because it is about a firefighter who died in the line of duty. In the end he probably was told about his benefits and his widow will get exactly what she is entitled to per the policy her husband had.

If the insurance he had through work wasn't sufficient and he didn't supplement it privately that isn't really his employer's fault. Anyone in a high risk job really needs to know what their family has coming if they die doing it. It might sound cruel but that is how insurance works. I do feel bad for her if she was told by her husband something that wasn't true. I don't feel bad for her if she is trying to spin a story in the media to get something she doesn't have rightfully coming. Feel bad in the sense of the payout, not that her husband died.

 

[Geoff_M]

This is what happens when employers manipulate the system to keep workers who work 40 hours a week year round from attaining "full time permanent" status. It's happening to more and more workers.

The story at this link http://www.wildfirex.com/2013/08/06...-mountain-hot-shots-will-receive-in-benefits/ and related stories are worthwhile reading.

The widow never states her husband worked as a fire fighter year-round. Her claim seems to be based on the fact that he was working 40-hour weeks while working in the position and, in her eyes, was therefore "full-time". Wildfires are seasonal, and it is logical for services to augment their staffs with seasonal workers during the hot/dry parts of the year. I don't see anything underhanded here. It's sad, and if the quote about "communication" is true, then it is beyond rude... But that's it.

 

[ronandannette]

They were also quite young (29 & 28); who among us was considering our own mortality at that age? Even in a comparatively dangerous profession, I agree with the poster that theorized the DH didn't fully consider the implications of the benefit package, just signed on the dotted line. Whether or not he explained it adequately to his DW we'll never know. If so she clearly didn't understand either or at least claims not to have now. I find it unfortunate and odd that the municipality made the grand gesture of offering to modify the entitlements posthumously WITHOUT verifying that such a thing could be done.

 

[sbtrfly74]

I would have loved to get 328k when my husband passed with kids 5 and 9 at the time. Im sure its beyond hard on her with 4 kids but she wasnt left with nothing. My MIL who was forced to retire and passed 5 months later would have received 125k from her pension and we received 20k instead and her pension went back to the school system. I feel bad for her but it could have been way worse if she didnt receive anything like some do.

 

[Tozzie]

That quote is what the widow said they told her. I'm not sure who "they" are but it is also likely that what was actually said was much more sensitive and she just took it this way.

Doubtful, bureaucrats are insensative clods and that is in my opinion exactly what was said to her if not something worse.


It is also doubtful that the husband knew exactly what his status was.

 

[Tozzie]

That is incredibly rough for the family but I can pretty well bet that Human Resources explained his benefits to him and it went in one ear and out the other. I'm not saying that to be mean, it is just the way people operate. My husband is educated out the wazoo and if somebody were to ask him about his pension plan and life insurance tonight they'd get the blankest of blank looks. He signs where he's told and puts it out of his mind.

In my experience very few people adequately consider life insurance. My husband was fairly perturbed years ago when I told him the policy provided by his employer wasn't adequate and he had to get more.

I have serious doubts that human resources explained anything to him. I am currently employed by the same employer I was hired by over 25 years ago and not once were my benefits explained to me. We had a choice of 9 different health insurance policies and I had to investigate all on my own and had a day to do it and this was before the internet. Please don't assume everyone has something called human resources because not all jobs do.

 

[Geoff_M]

I have serious doubts that human resources explained anything to him. Unless he was misled to believe that his employment was permanent and not seasonal, then it wouldn't take an HR rep to that he would be a fire fighter year-round I am currently employed by the same employer I was hired by over 25 years ago and not once were my benefits explained to me. We had a choice of 9 different health insurance policies and I had to investigate all on my own and had a day to do it and this was before the internet.

I understand that often times HR departments won't go to great lengths to spell everything out for you, but even your case you were given the information... you were then expected to sort it out on your own. But unless the poor firefighter was misled to believe that his job was permanent instead of seasonal or was told he had the same benefits are the permanent year-round employees, I'm not sure what culpability the city bares.

Please don't assume everyone has something called human resources because not all jobs do.

Here's the link with the contact information for the city's HR department. They appear to exist.

Again, it's a sad situation and I cannot imagine losing a spouse like that... but unless the city self-insures, the payments would be through the city's insurance carrier based on the contract language in the policy and supported by prior premium payments paid by the employee and/or paid by the city on the employee's behalf. Retroactively adding a deceased person to a life insurance policy is effectively insurance fraud. It's no different than calling an insurance agent from your just-wrecked uninsured car and trying to take out out a collision policy on it. The only alternative would be the city to make a payout to the widow out of its own pocket... but there would then be another 12 families to pay.

 

[usd2bmd]

She is receiving over $300,000, according to the article. That should be enough for her to be a stay-at-home mom for over 3 years, and then her youngest will be of school age and she can find employment, can't she? If her husband was working part-time, was she working?

Edited to add that the article states that she will also get 'worker's compensations'. What's that?

i am assuming the Worker's Comp part is a death benefit because he was killed at work.

I suspect this is a story that has been sensationalized because it is about a firefighter who died in the line of duty. In the end he probably was told about his benefits and his widow will get exactly what she is entitled to per the policy her husband had.

If the insurance he had through work wasn't sufficient and he didn't supplement it privately that isn't really his employer's fault. Anyone in a high risk job really needs to know what their family has coming if they die doing it. It might sound cruel but that is how insurance works. I do feel bad for her if she was told by her husband something that wasn't true. I don't feel bad for her if she is trying to spin a story in the media to get something she doesn't have rightfully coming. Feel bad in the sense of the payout, not that her husband died.

I agree. When my husband and I started dating and were first married he was a volunteer firefighter and although there were death benefits in case something happened he had insurance to supplement that because it could happen and we needed to be prepared.

Doubtful, bureaucrats are insensative clods and that is in my opinion exactly what was said to her if not something worse.


It is also doubtful that the husband knew exactly what his status was.

Not to be insensitive but if he didn't know what his status was that was his issue. They were all adults when you sing up and go through your benefits information it is up to you to know what you are reading and getting.

There is something to be said for personal responsibility. Why is it that she is the only one of all of the widows who is raising the issue...maybe because everyone knew and understood what could happen. Maybe they just lived like it would never happen to them .

Sad, because it did.