# Full-time vs. Part-time and the Yarnell 19.



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

*Prescott united in grief, divided over firefighter survivor benefits*

*After Arizona's Yarnell Hill fire, Prescott  is torn over survivors' benefits for the families of 13 part-time  Granite Mountain Interagency Hotshot Crew members killed in the blaze.*



> Now, a conflict over whether to extend full survivors' benefits to  the families of 13 firefighters killed on the job June 30 looms over  Prescott
> [...]
> Six members of the Granite Mountain Interagency Hotshot Crew were  full-time city employees, and their families are entitled to full-time  survivors benefits. Most notably, they're eligible for healthcare,  though they must make regular premium payments.
> 
> ...



More on this story, including a suggestion that the city is overstating the case w.r.t. the financial difficulty it would suffer in extending the benefits to all the families of those killed:

*Prescott takes the cheapskate approach to dead Yarnell firefighters *


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Were the details of the benefits clearly stated and understood by the people when they took the job?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

It doesn't say. I would hope so.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2013)

My opinion would be if they were acting as full time employees at time of death then they are full time employees.  I know the town charter does not read that way but I think if they take it to court and use the military as the example.  Reservists are treated as full time when called up.  

The one woman claims her husband was told he was hired full-time by the chief but he never submitted the paperwork and he was also killed so she has no proof.  

Sucks they should change the Charter to read line of duty deaths receive benefits.  You die in line of duty your family should get benefits


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sucks they should change the Charter to read line of duty deaths receive benefits.  You die in line of duty your family should get benefits



I think that policy is the only one that's fair and just, and was surprised to see it isn't so--that they instead distinguish between benefits for part-timers vs. full-timers in something like this. But apparently it wasn't the deal and they're sticking with that.


----------



## granfire (Aug 17, 2013)

That sucks.
Most of the hotshots/smokejumpers are seasonal. 
If that sets precedent, I am seeing a lot of trouble in the future!
While those folks are hardcore and dedicated, I am sure many will reconsider doing this vital service for the communities, many of which not their own, to find something that secures their families should the unspeakable happen to them! 

I can understand that this is a lot of money for the town, but they do not have to shell out 24 millions at once. Maybe they need to get creative in the fundraising department to fund their pension plan for these families who have sacrificed/lost everything to protect the public!


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2013)

granfire said:


> That sucks.
> Most of the hotshots/smokejumpers are seasonal.
> If that sets precedent, I am seeing a lot of trouble in the future!
> While those folks are hardcore and dedicated, I am sure many will reconsider doing this vital service for the communities, many of which not their own, to find something that secures their families should the unspeakable happen to them!
> ...


yeah according to article 51 million over 60 years.  Im sure a city can find a way to come up with less than a million a year


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2013)

It's one guy in particular that bothers me.  He was working full time.  He and his family thought he was full time.  He had all the benefits and was working year round, 40 per week.  But was technically a part time employee...  So no survivors benefits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Aug 18, 2013)

[h=1]For Families of Dead Firefighters, a Fight Over  Compensation[/h]





> In life, firefighters from disparate states and backgrounds work side by  side, fighting the same blazes on the same terrain. But in death,  families say, they are sifted into different categories based on their  official employment status. Whether they were full-time or part-time,  government employees or contractors can make a difference amounting to  hundreds of thousands of dollars, providing some families with a  financial lifeline from the government and others with barely enough to  pay for a funeral.
> 
> 
> Questions about how to compensate these families have a greater  resonance this year, one of the deadliest for wildfire crews in a  decade. It has been a summer of tearful remembrances and makeshift  memorials from North Carolina to Oregon, to central Arizona, where 19 hotshot firefighters  died in the chaparral mountains. In all, at least 26 wildland  firefighters have died so far this year, according to government  figures, and blazes are still raging across the West.
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2013)

arnisador said:


> *For Families of Dead Firefighters, a Fight Over  Compensation*


All the more reason to make sure you have life insurance.  Dont wait for the Govt to take care of your family.


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> All the more reason to make sure you have life insurance.  Dont wait for the Govt to take care of your family.



Interesting perspective.  I think of a survivors pension as an employer issue, not a government issue.  These guys happen to be government employees.

But, I agree about the life insurance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Private insurance seems like the best idea here. Funding pensions and benefits like this is not going to work long term because the tax base can fluctuate so much.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Steve said:


> Interesting perspective.  I think of a survivors pension as an employer issue, not a government issue.  These guys happen to be government employees.
> 
> But, I agree about the life insurance.
> 
> ...



Yeah I don't count on my pension or survivor benefits.  With seeing what happened in Detroit I may not have a pension in 20 years.  I read an article that police and fite pension in Detroit could be cut to .17 on the dollar


----------



## granfire (Aug 19, 2013)

But that's because sticky fingers dipped into the funds....

I hope your private investments fair better than my nestegg...died in the last round of financial troubles...

Seems that both markets are afflicted by the same type of peole who like to play fast and loose with other people's money!

One more point: Can you even get life insurance as 'part time' firefighter or smoke jumper?
Isn't that type of insurance bought in a group setting from the employer? Not unlike soldier's packages. After all, people in a lead ladden environment are a bad risk...

Either way, the (un)fair city of Prescott. not sure if I'd trust them sending in a package like that...seems they are great at penny pinching and bean counting!
They could instead shine in this moment of tragedy: Organize a big shindig, ball or dinner, to benefit the survivor fund. Make it an annual thing, they should be able to raise the money....

But nooooooooo.......


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

That's part of the risk though. One of these reasons these jobs pay so poorly is because the government subsidizes the whole thing. If people had to pay up front in a private business sense for the real risk of smoke jumpers, these guys would be getting paid several times more.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 19, 2013)

I also wondered if life ins. would exclude injuries from having such an occupation from coverage.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I also wondered if life ins. would exclude injuries from having such an occupation from coverage.



As a newly licensed life insurance salesman.  It would depend on how the policy is written.  But police and fire are not generally excluded you might pay a little more


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

I forgot these guys where smoke jumpers they might not be allowed but regular fire fighters are not exempt.  We don't have smoke jumpers here so I don't know how that works


----------



## granfire (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That's part of the risk though. One of these reasons these jobs pay so poorly is because the government subsidizes the whole thing. If people had to pay up front in a private business sense for the real risk of smoke jumpers, these guys would be getting paid several times more.



You are making no sense.
Well, if you build your house in a wild fire area, the fees and taxes you pay to the community ought to cover the expense.
No need to government subsidize. 

As to pay...you can't send any tom, dick or harry in....good idea to spend nothing on them...strange mindset....


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Hes one of those "private ownership" libertarian types......subset of the Freeman movement IMO.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

granfire said:


> Well, if you build your house in a wild fire area, the fees and taxes you pay to the community ought to cover the expense.



They obviously aren't enough otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Hes one of those "private ownership" libertarian types......subset of the Freeman movement IMO.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Um, no.  LOL.  I'm just a guy who thinks the second line in the Declaration of Independence was good enough for the whole damn thing.



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Sorry I would have been more accurate to have called you a Left-wing market anarchist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Sorry I would have been more accurate to have called you a Left-wing market anarchist.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism



I believe in self ownership and property rights, so the I guess that puts me on the right. Ugh, the me of ten years ago is so ashamed. Lol.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

But anyway, I misspoke. The government is actually subsidizing the property owners by paying for the smoke jumpers. If the government didn't pay for them, people wouldn't be able to live in those places unless they could pay for the high insurance premiums that would pay smoke jumpers salary. They would make far more money in the free market...of course there would be fewer of them as well.

Anyway, perhaps people should live in certain areas? Maybe there would be less need for people to take such risks and less death and less property damage if people had to pay the true cost of living in an area.


----------



## granfire (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> But anyway, I misspoke. The government is actually subsidizing the property owners by paying for the smoke jumpers. If the government didn't pay for them, people wouldn't be able to live in those places unless they could pay for the high insurance premiums that would pay smoke jumpers salary. They would make far more money in the free market...of course there would be fewer of them as well.
> 
> Anyway, perhaps people should live in certain areas? Maybe there would be less need for people to take such risks and less death and less property damage if people had to pay the true cost of living in an area.



the home owners do pay for the fire fighters through their property taxes. If those do not cover the expense, it's the city's problem. 
Plus it is a calculated risk when you build your house further out of own than the trucks can travel. 
Still no subsidies involved, since wildfires do not strike the same location that often.

A bigger problem is the interruption of wildfire cycles. In the past we had many smaller ones which we eliminated successfully, only to have the dead underbrush, etc accumulate. When it goes up now, it's a big fire, hard to control.

And yes, there are places were one dos not need to build a house.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

granfire said:


> the home owners do pay for the fire fighters through their property taxes. If those do not cover the expense, it's the city's problem.
> Plus it is a calculated risk when you build your house further out of own than the trucks can travel.
> Still no subsidies involved, since wildfires do not strike the same location that often.
> 
> ...



I guess you aren't seeing the point that government actually subsidizes people who live in these dangerous ares by paying the piddly salaries of the men who take these kind of risks. If government did not do this, the real cost would drive up salaries and prohibit more people from moving to wildfire areas. This would happen because people would have an insurance actuary come in and assess the real risk and people would have to pay for that.


----------

