Looks like another federal handout to me. So, as an insurance broker, if I die of a heart attack at work, are they going to give my kids money too? I am protecting the public by supplying insurance to all those people driving cars!!. With no medical history to go back on, their is no way to prove or disprove if the “volunteer” work that this guy did had any thing to do with his heart attack. Could be he ate two many sausages and eggs and cheese grits.
The point of the legislation is that if the firefighter is an employee of the fire department and dies of a heart attack while fighting a fire — then there is workers comp. Volunteer fire fighters who die in the line of work should be afforded the same type of benefit. The background check should be no more (or no less) than a workers comp claim.
I don’t want to seem heartless, but doesn’t the definition of “volunteer” have something to do with performing an act without compensation? I’m pretty sure this guy knew he wasn’t getting paid. And as most of you know, work comp is not free, and neither are Federal benefits [for society].
The fire fighters served a community. If that community valued it’s fire fighters, it could purchase WC or deal with it some other way. My point is, this is not a job for the Federal government. As learned in the article, they can’t even efficiently administer it.
The point here is that if a community has a volunteer fire department — they don’t have the funds to purchase WC. The Federal Goverment is saying in the legislation that if a fire fighter loses his/her life in the pursuet of fighting a fire, then they should be compensated like a paid fire fighter is compensated. Don’t you think it is a little cold to say that since they were a volunteer — if they lose their life serving their community that a response is “it’s volunteer — so tough luck if you die”.
I don’t know about other states, but in NY volunteer firefighters MUST be covered by a VFBL (Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law) policy; which is a section of the WC law. Because these individuals are volunteers does NOT mean that they are not entitled to benefits when injured. Compared to the VFBL premium, try adding up what it would cost to provide fire protection service totally with paid firefighters. It makes the VFBL premium look like a “small figure” in comparison.
First, the article doesn’t explicitly state it, but I don’t think paid employees are exempt from this benefit. Not to mention it doesn’t even need to be a death “in the line of duty.”
Secondly, you say a community can’t afford WC? Are the fire trucks and fire hoses also volunteers? Are their school teachers volunteers? Local communities have a magical thing called property tax.
Again, not disagreeing with the benefit, just disagreeing with the premise that the Federal government has to do it. (Hint: this applies to many things).
Third, yes it is cold-hearted to say that if you are a volunteer and you die you get no benefits. But even if I muster up all the emotions in the world towards this poor fellow, I still open my wallet and there is not $250,000 to give him. In other words, emotions don’t pay benefits. My point here is let the community that is responsible pay for it, it is there decision and there responsibility. If a community does not manage it’s crime adequately enough, and gangsters are shooting cops all the time, I don’t want my federal taxes going to pay for it. That would be the community’s responsibility to resolve their problems.
Agree w/OK’s comments. In addition, why would anybody allow a 68 year old man to volunteer as a firefighter? He’s a physical liability to others working with him. That’a not prejudice against older folks, just the reality of the physcial condition. Running around and breathing smoke is enough risk for a young man much less a senior citizen.
How dare this adult daughter allege hardship because of the delay of any monies due? I’m sure her 68 year old father wasn’t supporting her. If she and her brother need money, they should consider a paying job. Aside from helping the family with upaid medical bills, why should there be monetary compensation when no dependants are involved? OK is right on, the Federal Government shouldn’t be underwriting volunteers.
As a former City Clerk, I can tell you that there is no such thing as “a free volunteer firefighter”!! They get paid under local interagency/interlocal agreements for both manpower and trucks used. On interagency/interlocal agreement fires our fire dept guys got over $20.00 per hour, hourly truck charges, plus firefighters life/injury/retirement insurance that the City paid for, plus equipment the City paid for, plus fuel the City paid for, plus truck housing the City paid for. Get the picture? The only thing they did not get paid for were the few fires that were actually within the City limits. And it was a very small City.
Too bad he wasn’t an illegal alien – family would have benn paid – probably twice by now.
Looks like another federal handout to me. So, as an insurance broker, if I die of a heart attack at work, are they going to give my kids money too? I am protecting the public by supplying insurance to all those people driving cars!!. With no medical history to go back on, their is no way to prove or disprove if the “volunteer” work that this guy did had any thing to do with his heart attack. Could be he ate two many sausages and eggs and cheese grits.
The point of the legislation is that if the firefighter is an employee of the fire department and dies of a heart attack while fighting a fire — then there is workers comp. Volunteer fire fighters who die in the line of work should be afforded the same type of benefit. The background check should be no more (or no less) than a workers comp claim.
So many stories like this, it makes me “Sicko”!
I don’t want to seem heartless, but doesn’t the definition of “volunteer” have something to do with performing an act without compensation? I’m pretty sure this guy knew he wasn’t getting paid. And as most of you know, work comp is not free, and neither are Federal benefits [for society].
The fire fighters served a community. If that community valued it’s fire fighters, it could purchase WC or deal with it some other way. My point is, this is not a job for the Federal government. As learned in the article, they can’t even efficiently administer it.
The point here is that if a community has a volunteer fire department — they don’t have the funds to purchase WC. The Federal Goverment is saying in the legislation that if a fire fighter loses his/her life in the pursuet of fighting a fire, then they should be compensated like a paid fire fighter is compensated. Don’t you think it is a little cold to say that since they were a volunteer — if they lose their life serving their community that a response is “it’s volunteer — so tough luck if you die”.
I don’t know about other states, but in NY volunteer firefighters MUST be covered by a VFBL (Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law) policy; which is a section of the WC law. Because these individuals are volunteers does NOT mean that they are not entitled to benefits when injured. Compared to the VFBL premium, try adding up what it would cost to provide fire protection service totally with paid firefighters. It makes the VFBL premium look like a “small figure” in comparison.
First, the article doesn’t explicitly state it, but I don’t think paid employees are exempt from this benefit. Not to mention it doesn’t even need to be a death “in the line of duty.”
Secondly, you say a community can’t afford WC? Are the fire trucks and fire hoses also volunteers? Are their school teachers volunteers? Local communities have a magical thing called property tax.
Again, not disagreeing with the benefit, just disagreeing with the premise that the Federal government has to do it. (Hint: this applies to many things).
Third, yes it is cold-hearted to say that if you are a volunteer and you die you get no benefits. But even if I muster up all the emotions in the world towards this poor fellow, I still open my wallet and there is not $250,000 to give him. In other words, emotions don’t pay benefits. My point here is let the community that is responsible pay for it, it is there decision and there responsibility. If a community does not manage it’s crime adequately enough, and gangsters are shooting cops all the time, I don’t want my federal taxes going to pay for it. That would be the community’s responsibility to resolve their problems.
No more Federal handouts.
Agree w/OK’s comments. In addition, why would anybody allow a 68 year old man to volunteer as a firefighter? He’s a physical liability to others working with him. That’a not prejudice against older folks, just the reality of the physcial condition. Running around and breathing smoke is enough risk for a young man much less a senior citizen.
How dare this adult daughter allege hardship because of the delay of any monies due? I’m sure her 68 year old father wasn’t supporting her. If she and her brother need money, they should consider a paying job. Aside from helping the family with upaid medical bills, why should there be monetary compensation when no dependants are involved? OK is right on, the Federal Government shouldn’t be underwriting volunteers.
Thanks Iceman. Forgot about the fact he was 68. Other firefighters could have died trying to save him.
As a former City Clerk, I can tell you that there is no such thing as “a free volunteer firefighter”!! They get paid under local interagency/interlocal agreements for both manpower and trucks used. On interagency/interlocal agreement fires our fire dept guys got over $20.00 per hour, hourly truck charges, plus firefighters life/injury/retirement insurance that the City paid for, plus equipment the City paid for, plus fuel the City paid for, plus truck housing the City paid for. Get the picture? The only thing they did not get paid for were the few fires that were actually within the City limits. And it was a very small City.