Posted on 08/07/2013 10:17:30 AM PDT by Ron C.
The young widow of a firefighter who died with 18 others while battling an Arizona wildfire in June has reportedly been denied the lifetime benefits she sought to raise the couple’s four children.
Juliann Ashcraft, 28, said she will receive workers’ compensations and a one-time federal payment of $328,000 in the death of her 29-year-old husband Andrew, who was among the Granite Mountain Hotshots who were killed on June 30 while fighting a wildfire near Yarnell, CBS reports.
“I want to be able to just be mourning my husband, be supporting my children, be figuring out what our new normal is,” Ashcraft told CBS. “As shocked as I was that my husband went to work and never came home, I’m equally shocked in how the city has treated our family since then.”
But Ashcraft was told that her husband and 12 others among the group were seasonal employees whose relatives are not entitled to the millions in lifetime salaries and health benefits, even though he worked 40 hours a week. Just six families of the 19 firefighters killed will receive the benefit packages, CBS reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They all died together they all should receive the same benefits.
Yep
No one forced them to sign the contract with these terms. This is basic contract law.
Don’t like the terms, find a job with terms you like.
While I feel for her loss, benefits like this are exactly why this country faces collapse.
We’ve got to find another way.
I am going to have to side with the city on this one. Unless some deception was used to get these men to agree to be employed as seasonal labor, there is no reason for the survivors to expect that employment conditions and benefits should be altered poshumously.
This may sound cold but the truth is that this firefighter agreed to his conditions of employment and did not compensate for his lack of benefits with adequate life insurance to protect his family. His widow now wants the public to subsidize that mistake and rather than asking for charity she is suing. To me this is no different than demanding welfare.
When employee's die on the job they should all get the same benefits - none of this, well his life is worth less than some other guy that died beside him.
I agree with you. There is no substitute for having sufficient life insurance. What if he had died in a car accident? She would possibly not be getting even the benefits she will receive now (without the lawsuit).
Emotionalism should not trump the rule of law, otherwise we’re all just a nation of Democrats.
I understand the strong emotional appeal here, I feel it, but they had a contract which was agreed to by both parties so unless there are circumstances I don’t know about...
The families of the firefighters who were seasonal employees are all getting worker’s compensation benefits and a 300K+ payout from the feds. This is a heck of a lot better than what they’d get had their husbands been working the average job. I’m sorry for their loss, but they were seasonal employees and those are the benefits assigned.
When my great grandmother’s brother in law was killed fighting a fire in Michigan’s UP around 1912, they dumped his body on the doorstep. They said “sorry for your loss” gave her the last week’s pay and a few bucks the firefighters collected, and wished her luck.
She ended up marrying another one of the firefighters a few months later largely out of necessity but they went on with their lives. I remember “Stu” telling me that times were tough and he had to learn to be a farmer from his wife in a hurry because he was a Detroit born dockworker who went to fight fires for adventure.
“I agree with you. There is no substitute for having sufficient life insurance. What if he had died in a car accident? She would possibly not be getting even the benefits she will receive now (without the lawsuit)”
A seasonal firefighter might have a hard time buying affordable life insurance. This would have to be disclosed to the insurer, who would put a hefty extra premium on top of the normal premium due to the larger risk that job entails.
Not knowing what his family financial situation was it’s possible (they were pretty young and maybe not financially secure) he couldn’t afford more insurance. It’s not fair to make the assumption that a firefighter could purchase a lot of insurance, even at a young age when its’ cheapest.
There are always ways the government gets around the rules they set for everyone else!
In this case they got past them by hiring them as ‘part time’ workers
See! they saved a lot of government money! Screw you, public!
In your rebuttal you miss the obvious: he didn’t have to be in that profession. It was his and her responsibility to make sure the family was provided for in case one or the other died. With both nearly 30, not 20, there’s no excuse.
That sounds about right. My mother left school to go to work to help make ends meet when her firefighter father died. Given the facts, this widow should not be expecting millions in lifetime benefits.
Sure, on principle I can agree but in the real world only if that's what the contract says. If not, then force changes in the labor agreement. Since he was a firefighter, there's some chance a union was involved in creating that agreement.
It is not your employers responsibility to ensure that:
You have a living wage.
That your survivors are properly taken care of.
That you have enough funds to retire on.
etc, etc.
People need to grow up and take charge of their lives.
“In your rebuttal you miss the obvious: he didn’t have to be in that profession. It was his and her responsibility to make sure the family was provided for in case one or the other died. With both nearly 30, not 20, there’s no excuse.”
Under your assessment no one should:
Become a firefighter
Become a police officer
Join the Military
or any other ‘riskier’ profession
unless they bought a lot of life insurance first.
It’s ‘know it all’s’ like you that give conservatives a bad name. And what happens if the life insurance applicant had to take a job to make ends meet and this was the only option they had?
Oh, that’s right - go work 28 hours at McDonald’s instead . . .
Your attitude and self-righteousness is disgusting.
Social Security pays her $1080 per month per child until each child reaches the age of 18. She cannot live on $4000 per month plus her workman’s compensation, insurance and other payouts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.