Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Charged Marine's Widow an Early Termination Fee

In a decision that was reversed as soon as someone with half a brain in their PR department learned about it, Verizon charged a widow a $350 early termination fee. After the death of her marine husband, Michaela Brummund decided to move back to her home town to be with her family. Verizon doesn't offer any coverage in the small town so Michaela tried to cancel her contract, only to be hit with an early termination fee. From the article: "'I called them to cancel. I told them the situation with my husband. I even said I would provide a death certificate,' Michaela said."

35 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. Simple really... by unts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.

    1. Re:Simple really... by papasui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand just because her husband dies doesn't mean the world stops. I'm sure she received a life insurance check to cover these type of expenses.

    2. Re:Simple really... by unts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is true, but Verizon could operate with a certain sense of... decorum. Plus, I doubt they lose that much money in early termination due to deceased individuals.

    3. Re:Simple really... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cost of lost business to Verizon due to bad publicity > Profit to be made from ETF

    4. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, lots of people die every day for lots of reasons, some people jerk off with a belt around their neck and go too far. Other people try to have sex with a barnyard animal and get kicked in the head. Yet others get into a car wreck because they are sexting an underage boy and die in a fire.

      But *this* woman's husband died serving our country, while getting paid less than a garbage man in most large cities.Whether you agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, our military has a long and honorable history of protecting us (and much of the rest of the world), and when a soldier dies in combat, a certain reverence (or at least decorum) is in order. What Verizon did was just tacky, and I am glad they reversed course.

    5. Re:Simple really... by danny_lehman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congratulations, You have successfully completed de facto school of business.

    6. Re:Simple really... by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision.

      But when the executive decision came down, Verizon ended up making it right, which is how things are supposed to work, right? And they are "assholes" for that?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    7. Re:Simple really... by GaryOlson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The executive decision did not come down until a prominent news agency made an inquiry. Otherwise, I quite expect no executive would have ever taken an interest to make a decision.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    8. Re:Simple really... by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a word: yes

      If "low paid drones" don't feel empowered enough to use their head on a very obvious issue, that's a management problem. And the blame for that is correctly placed at the top of the organizational pyramid. I stand by my remarks

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    9. Re:Simple really... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a major failure in the way the company is structured then.

      If you don't have a system that allows people with insight and power to make decisions that affect your customers without the latter going to the media and crying foul, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    10. Re:Simple really... by besalope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."

      You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.

      Having worked customer (dis)service, it generally comes down to:

      • A) Follow Rule Book and say "No." -- Keep job, even if low paying, in an economy that is still utterly tanked.
      • B) Fuck the Rule Book. -- Help some random stranger you really don't care about, who really doesn't care about you or the crap you put up with on a daily basis, which in turn places your job and livelihood at risk.

      I'm sorry, but given the options most customer service representatives can choose from, they will undoubtedly go with the "cover your ass" approach to insulate themselves being detrimentally effected by poor decision-making. Was it right to charge an ETF to a grieving widow? No. But in business contracts are king. You signed it, deal with it.

    11. Re:Simple really... by boxwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt the "drone" would even have the ability to waive the fee. I am certain they don't give that authority to anyone taking calls, and I seriously doubt even their managers have that authority themselves.

      So unless the "drone" was willing to pay the $350 out of his/her own pocket it just wouldn't happen.

      Unfortunately, to the modern day corporation, customer support is a problem to be disposed of as cheaply as possible. That means encouraging the people working the phones to get the customer to go way as quickly and cheaply as possible. If they allow people at the call center (almost always outsourced) to give refunds and waive fees, increases costs. Much more profitable to have the call center give people the run around until they give up. And tell the call center that is someone from the media calls to direct those to a people who do have extra authority.

      Here's a tip: if you want to get awesome support for so piece of technology, when you call, say "I'm writing a review for ." They'll bend over backwards for you. If you aren't in the media no corporation will give a shit about your problem. Your problem isn't their problem. Their problem is to get rid of you.

    12. Re:Simple really... by victorhooi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      heya,

      And you sir, must be an Anonynous Coward...oh wait...you are...

      Look, you may or may not have had respect for the last Administration. But this guy decided to leave his family, go over there, and serve his country. He was fighting the Taliban, the same folks who harboured Osama, who err, let's see, bombed the World Trade Centre? I'm Australian, but last time I checked, that incident killed quite a few of you folk.

      Look, I know it's hip and trendy for us to sit here comfortably in our offices, and our homes, with air-conditioning, decent food, and nice suits, whilst people on the other side of the world are risking their lives, but seriously mate, get some class...

      I think the coward label is most apt here.

      Also, corporate apologist? What the heck has that got to do with anything? *sigh* You American left-wing nutjobs really amuse me. You try to see a conspiracy in everything. Is Verizon in cohorts with the Taliban? Or are they in cohorts with Haliburton? Or I don't know, is somebody in cohorts with someobdy else? And where did the Republican tag come from?

      And military bootlicker, please...He was just a kid who went over there to defend his country? It's all very well and good to talk down the military while you're sitting comfortably, in your anonymity there, but I'd like you to go up to a war-widom and say that to her face. She'd probably break you into little pieces and make you weep like a little boy....now that'd be a sight..

      Cheers,
      Victor

    13. Re:Simple really... by Sanhedran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't "loose" any money except any projected difference in income between contract end and termination data, minus the cancellation fee. It's a tactic to a) make money off of people who aren't even getting any services from the company, and b) force consumers to stick with said company for no other reason than being punished otherwise. Phone carriers have seen a big return on text and data plans. I'd like to see what data you have that says that losses due to customer death are any sort of significant concern for them, though.

    14. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.

      And why does the fact that her husband died mean that she shouldn't have to pay for her cellphone bill? I'd understand if it was HIS phone that she was deactivating (they aren't allowed to charge an ETF for cancelling the service of someone who's dead), but it was HER phone she was cancelling because she chose to move to a place where she wouldn't get service.

      Her husband dying is completely irrelevant to the issue with Verizon charging her an ETF as was stated in her contract. The issue here is a woman decided of her own volition to move to a place where she wouldn't get service with Verizon and as such, she canceled her contract early. Instead of paying the ETF as she should, she uses a sob story about how her husband died (which had no impact on the phone bill, since we're only talking about canceling HER phone) and as such, she shouldn't be expected to pay her bills and fulfill her legal obligations.

      I accidentally broke my phone and decided to change carriers when I got a new one - I paid the ETF without complaint. Paying an ETF on a broken phone is much more ridiculous than paying an ETF because you decide to move where you know you won't get service.

      I know, I'll get modded down because people want to say "But her husband died!" - yes, he did, and that sucks for her big time. I'd hate to have something like that happen to me. However, it doesn't change the fact that she still has to pay her bills and uphold her end of the contract.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    15. Re:Simple really... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      Devil's advocate time.

      Michaela Brummund canceled Michaela Brummund's cell phone contract with Verizon because Michaela Brummund decided to move somewhere Verizon didn't service.

      So why is it unreasonable to assess an ETF? Oh. Because of why she decided to move. Her husband is dead.

      So if someone's spouse dies and they decide to up and move, contractual obligation cease? Oh. It's because of why her husband was dead.

      So if my wife dies of cancer and I decide to become a hermit and live in a cave, I should pay an ETF but if she dies employed by the military I shouldn't? What if she's a school-bus driver and dies in an accident after decades of serving children? Because one death is inherently more important than another. No. I'm sorry, it's not.

      I'm glad that Verizon cut her a break. That's great. But there's nothing inherently right in doing so. It's just a PR gesture.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  2. Follow the leader... by PPalmgren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why its bad to give zero authority to the peons at the bottom of your organization. In an effort to restrict decisions to higher-ups and make low-level decisions 95% predictable, you get bit in the ass with bad PR that can cost millions in damages, only because the first two or three people closest to the customer aren't allowed to make braindead obvious decisions.

    You can almost always tell a corporate culture by calling their customer support.

    1. Re:Follow the leader... by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those with no decision power CAN escalate it up the food chain to someone that does.

      Sure they can. And after they've done that a few times, they can be invited to seek out exciting new opportunities as a Hygiene Technician (Fryer Specialist) at Burger King.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by BlueKitties · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because you have a legally binding contract doesn't give you the right to be a dick.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  4. What does being a widow have to do with anything? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk about playing the sympathy card.

    Now, I'm sure Verizon should have been more flexible here, but not because she was a widow. Because the early termination fee is unfair in this circumstance. Do others get to be treated unfairly because they haven't had a bereavement?

  5. Yeah... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually it does.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  6. Free Marketroid Answer by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "She should have predicted this when she signed up for Verizon"

    --
    BMO

  7. I'm with Verizon by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue isn't that the guy died and the widow wanted to cancel the contract. If that were so, I'd totally be with her.

    It's that she decided to up and move and canceled the contract because where she decided to move didn't have service. That, is her fault only.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:I'm with Verizon by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Widow moves out of service area, gets early termination fee on canceled contract."

      Would be a more appropriate, albeit less sensational headline.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  8. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah man, this is America. Pay up.

    No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.

    This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.

    Pay up.

  9. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So he died. Get over it.

    Congratulations! That's about the most insensitive thing you could say to a grieving widow. From TFA:

    Michaela's father, a veteran himself, is outraged. "It's not about the money. I don't care about the money. It's the principle. The man was overseas fighting for our country and lost his life doing so," said Kevin Gause. "It's heartless what Verizon is doing."

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  10. Re:The evil of early termination fees by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.

    Someone made an observation last week that I thought was especially telling (wish I could credit the source). I'm basically paraphrasing here ..

    I get through the 2 year contract which pays for the phone. So how come my rates don't go down in the third year if I keep the same phone?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. In a better world? Yes. by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.

    We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.

  12. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow...

    There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today

    So.. because the policy is now costing them less, they need get rid of it?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  13. I feel the need to be a dick about this one by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, should everyone whose spouse dies be let out of such contract, or only the spouses of Marines?

    Maybe only those who died serving the public - firefighters, police, military, etc? What about private "military contractors"? They kinda do the same thing (you know, defend Freedom, Justice, and the American Way), just for more money.

    Maybe only those who were married to someone who's nice?

    I'm fine with it either way, really, I just need to know what the rules are.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  14. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by mike260 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't see how parent post is a troll. Fact is, she got $100,000 from the US government for *exactly this reason* - so that she doesn't have to worry about money hassles on top of the grief and upheaval.

    If she's angry and wants to lash out at Verizon for daring to send her a bill then that's perfectly understandable, but the parent's point stands: War-widows, although deserving of sympathy and respect, are not above having to pay their bills.

  15. Wrong Verizon, Wrong by genican1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the issue here is the fact that she's having to pay the fee even though she's now living in an area with no service. This has nothing to do with the fact that she is a widow, this is just asshattery on VZW's part. I know certain other carriers allow you to cancel under similar circumstances without paying the ETF (AT&T).

    1. Re:Wrong Verizon, Wrong by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Verizon does, too. They reneged on all of their signed contracts in April when they announced that they would no longer honor that clause.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  16. No where near the experience I had with T-Mobile by Tisha_AH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had my sister on my T-Mobile account and she had purchased a new Android phone through the T-Mobile store. She died last year and it took me a few months to get around to calling T-Mobile to terminate the contract on her phone.

    The T-Mobile customer service representative was very understanding and sympathetic and waived any disconnect penalties or outstanding balance on the phone purchase. She had even offered to see if she could backdate the service termination a few months. I told her that was not necessary as it was my own reticence to close the account (you know, the finality of death and wrapping up the details of someone's life).

    Over the years little experiences like that with T-Mobile have made me a very loyal customer. It seems that someone still remembers how to treat their customers.

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  17. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills? Hey, cancel her credit cards, her mortgage, student loans, car loan - all of her debt is vanished because her husband died! That's not how it works, nor should it. A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson