Arizona Hotshot widow being denied his benefits by the city, and rudely, too?

[Maus]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584407/Widow-of-firefighter-killed-in-Arizona-fighting-with-employer-over-benefits.html?s_cid=Email-2  

 

This just popped up in my email feed from my local paper.  If what she claims is true, about the personal comments, someone needs to be fired.  Wow!

[TammyinTN]

What a mess...I feel so sorry for those families.  I hope they can reconsider and pay those other 12 families the full amount.  She will need it to raise those four little children.

 

[Live2Ride]

It's unacceptable!

[kitten18]

It's unacceptable!

YES!  

[plansrme]

The city is probably correct, however: the vast majority of benefit plans do not cover seasonal employees, regardless of the number of hours you work. They could pay her outside the plan, of course, but they are most likely not obligated to do so.

[bolt.]

I think there has been a misunderstanding of the terms of employment.

 

There is such a thing as "Hired for a season at full-time hours" which is not the same as "A full-time permanent employee" -- those two types of employees, while they may well work together and work in the same ways for that season -- and, granted, a "season" can certainly begin a career... they just *don't* have the same sorts of employment contracts or benefits... including death benefits... which means, unfortunately unequal death benefits for heroes.

 

I'm terribly sad that the death benefits for seasonal or non-full-time firefighters suck. That seems deeply wrong for such a life-threatening and noble profession. I'm sorry that good men 'take what they can get' and sign contracts to begin where they can begin as seasonal employees -- then lay their lives on the line. I'm awfully sorry that this good man left a family, including a wife who seems to think that her husband was 'full time employee' (a category of work that implies a permanent position) because he 'worked full time' in terms of hours, and they both probably thought he would probably stay at the job, and weren't thinking of it as seasonal. That's totally reasonable... But how they were thinking of it doesn't change the benefits of his position. The benefits of his position are based on his employment contract. If she had his signed contract that called him a 'full time employee' and detailed better death benefits this battle would not be all emotional social media and press coverage. The contract would tell them what she is entitled to, and she would get it or she would take her contract and sue them.

 

I do wish she was entitled to more. I really really do. I think all firefighters (and other high-risk occupations) should carry massive levels of benefits -- for seasonal and part-time workers, and everyone. Maybe this situation will change that in the future... but I don't think it can change it in the past. Perhaps there are some fundraising groups or other ways of offering help those who were not entitled to the same benefits as the other firefighters. That seems reasonable. Fighting for benefits that were not included in the terms of her husband's employment does not sound reasonable. I don't think she will win. I think she needs to take her federal payment to a financial advisor and see how she can use it best in her new life as a single mom of 4. It's not like she's penniless. She will be best in the long run if she is pro-active now.

[kiwik]

I would suspect the city checked pretty carefully before making such an unpopular decision. It quite likely would have been a permanent job in the long run but was probably not at the time of his death.

[LucyStoner]

She is getting a death benefit of over $300k from the federal government and workers comp. She's also entitled to SS payments for the 4 kids until each turns 18. People are also making donations for her. It sounds like the workers getting lifetime salary and healthcare were permanent, long term employees. They were also probably paying into the pension plan. Without dishonoring her husband, most young widows, including some those of deceased first responders, receive far less unless they have purchased their own insurance. They can't conjure money out of the pension plan that isn't there. I am not sure why this is unfair.

 

Forest firefighting is a job that is inherently seasonal and they do make seasonal hires. While no one should have been snippy with her, it very well may be that her husband didn't fully explain his hire with her.

[Mrs Mungo]

What she was told by the city employee was rude. They should have been more tender with her. You can be an employee that works 40 hours a week and still be a seasonal, non-vested employee.

 

A widow/er of a military member killed in combat only receives slightly more than that. The government definitely does not cover their lifetime salary. We pay for additional insurance on dh because he is in a dangerous line of work. I feel for her, but that doesn't make her right about the benefits.

[MedicMom]

If I or DH died in the line of duty as volunteer firefighters in this state, the surviving spouse would receive $750,000. We both carry half million dollar life insurance policies as well as employer policies that equal two years' salary. Due to the nature of our jobs we have carefully considered all of this.

 

I absolutely think that she is entitled in a moral sense to much more. In a contractual sense, though, it doesn't appear that her husband qualified.

[kitten18]

I know you all are right, it just sucks. :(