Three hundred and forty-three firefighters were murdered at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Their fire union, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, collected about $80 million in donations after the event. Donors thought that the money would go directly to the widows, children and families of those who died that day. They should have read the fine print. The fire union had other ideas.
Their plan was to invest the money and dole out small amounts to widows and children only over time. The families of single firefighters were not included.
In one of their plans, the amount of money a widow would receive was so small that at thirty-six years old, she would have to live to be ninety-six before she received her full amount on a dollar for dollar basis, an amount that donors expected she would receive immediately.
That scheme was so outrageous that the Charities Bureau at the New York State Attorney General’s office intervened and made the union give the money out as expected, but not all of it. The union got to keep about $20 million, which they then invested. The investment is doing well, and each December they are able to throw a Christmas party and give the children a $500 stipend.
The union also publishes a paper in the winter. In it union officials, surrounded by grateful widows and children, are prominently portrayed. It’s great public relations; the firefighters eat it up.
Joseph J. Hehir
FDNY Retired
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The investments did so well from 2003 to 2006 that on December of 2007, the union gave each child $5,000, but most years it was $500.
The point of view on this is not entirely clear.
It's a disgrace that they had to be forced to hand over the money to the families of those firefighters. And the notion that unmarried firefighters would receive nothing is unconscionable.
This sounds like the "kissing cousin" of the insurance industry scam perpetrated against the families of service men & women killed overseas.
These people should be held up to public censure, although I don't imagine the shame would mean much to them.
Cate,
The point is that the money given by donors to the union was for the widows, children and families of the firefighters who died on September 11, 2001, exclusively. It was expected that all the money would be given to them in a timely manner.
Donors did not want the union to invest the money, thereby placing it at risk. Donors did not want the union to dole out insignificant amounts over time to all of the widows and children of firefighters who died in the line of duty in the past or will die in the future either. They wanted their donations to go to the widows, children and families of the firefighters who died on September 11, 2001.
The union wanted to invest the donations and give it out over time, just so they can look like great guys to their union membership forever.
In other words, donors were fooled into thinking that their donations would go to the estate of the firefighters who died on September 11th when they gave to the Widows’ and Children’s Fund. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) did the opposite. They represent most unionized firefighters in the United States and Canada. As fast as they collected donations they passed it on to beneficiaries through the dead firefighter’s estates. Soon after September 11th they gave every family affected by the tragedy a check for $10,000.00 with a promise of more support to come. By doing that they said to the families that the entire firefighting community was behind them. It was a great moral booster.
Norm,
It is the "kissing cousin" of the insurance industry scam that you had up on Facebook, and I am going to expose this to the union membership again.
I say again, because the last time I wrote on this subject the firefighters thought it was a good thing to help the other widows. I was unable to get through to them the concept that donors gave to support the 9-11 families exclusively. Nor was I able to convince them that the union’s investment scheme was ineffective, expensive and risky, and was not what the donors wanted or expected.
Cate,
Leave it to an English teacher to point out my inability to communicate in writing.
Post a Comment