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."
Can I hear you? Good.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
doesn't exempt you from all commitments. I feel bad for her that she lost her husband but a contract is an obligation. There's a reason we have life insurance policies, you know, so you can pay some bills after your spouse dies.
I purchased a Motoroal Droid when it came out last year. Shortly after mentioning my purchase, I got a number of warnings about their billing department. Concerned, and also pissed at Verizon, I decided to return it for a full refund (it was well within two days of buying.) Shorty after, I got a huge termination fee, coupled with data charges in the megabytes (I literally never even used it with any 3G service.) and activation fees, even though it was clearly stated I wasn't supposed to be charged. It took upwards of four calls before the charges were removed from my account. Needless to say, I'm glad I did it, especially after seeing more bologna like this. Maybe one day they will realize that for each angry customer like me who cancels, they lose far more than the $350 termination fee.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
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.
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?
Death is a form of early termination. Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?
Actually it does.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"She should have predicted this when she signed up for Verizon"
--
BMO
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.
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);
Like Louis C.K said in his "Being Broke" monologue about the rich guys listening to it: "Well, yeah, you are financially irresponsible and you have to pay the price, I don't frankly... see why you are angry about it. The bank has the right to accrue a fee, clearly..."
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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!
The Early Termination fee is two things. One, it's a way for the company to recoup their costs of you running off with a smart phone that retails for $500+. Two, it's a way for them to ensure that none of their sheep go running off to other pastures as soon as they look a little greener. They've pretty much figured out that two years is the optimal length for a contract. Long enough to where you'll have their income coming in for a while and can make plans around that, but short enough to where you'll splurge for the most expensive phone every two years (with new two year contract, of course!) because you've had two years to save up for it.
I think a reboot of the cell phone industry really needs to happen here in the United States. I can go to Walmart right now and buy a prepaid phone for $20 or so with lots of features. Or I can go buy the same one at a cell phone store that's linked ONLY to one provider and costs $100. Free with two year plan, though..
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her. This has no remaining value for them.
Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?
I feel sorry for her loss. However, I'm a bit unclear about the reasoning behind this. For which fees, financial obligations, and loans is it unpatriotic to ask for repayment?
Waiving such fees is a nice thing to do; it expresses gratitude for the sacrifices that our military makes.
However, I start feeling uncomfortable when members of the military start talking about it as if it were an entitlement or obligation.
the company responded saying, " Verizon Wireless has long supported our troops.... Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."
Huh. So Verizon, as a company, now has a public opinion, not only on supporting our troops, but on the effectiveness of prayer?
Am I being overly sensitive, or is that just a bit odd?
That's not odd to me at all. Companies have professed opnions about god knows what for ages. What is worrying to me is they seem to think the company has a personal relationship with god/jesus/the-holy-ghost-too? and presumably an immortal soul. If true, this might just turn me to a life of virtue; I am not spending eternity with SCO!
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
No, the OP's point was aside from the PR damage why should being a war widow get you out of a contract for free? The ability to break contracts due to "exceptional circumstances" should be enshrined in law*, and not just happen due to the court of public opinion. Because we all know if Verizon couldn't provide the service for some reason or decided the customer wasn't worth the fee they would drop them like a rock and the customer would have no legal recourse.
* Also it should be illegal to only offer "free phone on a million year contract" deals.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
You're being overly sensitive - that 'non-denominationally pious' turn of phrase has been part of the politically correct vocabulary of every public official, PR and HR hack for the last few generations.
I'm sure it's a copy & paste from other previous public statements - I'd be surprised if it wasn't from some document template they've been using anytime anyone dies and they need to express condolences.
There shouldn't be an ETF. If you finance your phone through the phone company, that should be a separate line-item on your bill, and you should only have to pay off the balance to get out of the contract.
Phone companies are dipping into the paypal level of scumminess here: they're playing the "unregulated bank" game so they can charge usury interest (and continue to charge premiums even *after* the balance is 100% paid off!)
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
There's a reason why their customer satisfaction has gotten lower than even the kings of shit customer service - the airlines.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Sometimes, due to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/sscra/l/blsscra4.htm
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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
That is correct. The thing is, this behavior is encoded in a corporation's DNA. Corporations only understand money. They are organisms designed to extract money from their environment and give it to their owners. That's it.
Any expectation for a corporation to have a "moral code" comparable to human morals is unrealistic and naive.
Yes, by law, corporations are "persons."
Invincible, inhuman "persons," with no morals, no feelings, no compassion, programmed to extract money at any cost.
Sometimes I wonder if corporations can be viewed as parasitic life using humans to create suffering and transform it into an abstraction (the idea of value represented by the agreement of money).
The tendency to convert all natural resources, human lives and creativity into abstract numbers stored in computers leads humanity towards a future where we will have only money left on a toxic dead planet.
So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?
I feel sorry about her loss, and I believe that this isn't about the money. Also, I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules. But the (tragic) death is only tangentially related here.
The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.
As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things.
It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon.
If nothing else, it highlights how we little people get treated by corporations in America every day.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Someone With Half-A-Brain works in Verizon's PR Department.
I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.
Do you also believe in antitrust law and public utility regulation? Some goods and services considered essential for the expected standard of living in the United States are available only from monopolies[1] and cartels that impose questionably-conscionable contracts of adhesion on their customers. So I don't know how one would live in the United States without signing such a contract, except perhaps by joining the Amish.
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).
She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.
Yes, verizon should be more reasonable in general, especially when the contract is being cancelled because they provide no coverage where it's needed.
The fact that they would be such bastards even to the widow of a veteran just demonstrates the extent of their inhumanity.
I saw this on consumerist and fark, Yes Verizon is a soulless corperation, that's a fact.
However you don't get out of your contract with Verizon for moving out of the coverage area. The fact that her husband is dead has nothing to do with it. The phone's not in her husband's name. That's the sympathy ploy.
The only reason Verizon caved now is because oh-noes,media-attention.
Front line customer service representatives do not have the authority to reverse or waive ETF charges. If they did, they would do it for every single stupid sob story. Employees who reverse the ETF get shown the door.
Because the media was involved, it was obviously escalated to the office of the president, and they probably felt that the PR damage being caused by consumerist, fark and every other brainless news site is somehow the sentiment of the public.
Far from it. If you read most of the comments on consumerist and fark you'll see that few are sympathetic about wanting out of the ETF.
Believe it or not, people will fake dying to get out of an ETF.
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
I honestly have no problem with Verizon charging the termination fee in this situation. She canceled and that's all that matters. Whenever a spouse dies there's extra expenses, and this is just one of them. Life sucks. Death sucks even more.
Giving your life for your country doesn't excuse your financial contractual responsibilities.
Unless you're a corporation, then you can cancel your end at any time with no penalty.
God, I love this country! :sarcasm,off //anger, that's still simmering.
I know when my grandmother died, we had just helped her renew her AT&T contract a month before. I called AT&T from her phone and requested to cancel the service and asked how much the ETF would be. The girl on the phone acted surprised I'd even asked. She essentially told me that they would never charge an ETF for a line for someone that had passed away, mostly because they didn't want to cause any more hardship on the family. I'm sure thats crap and its just that they can't really hold a deceased person to a contract, but I was surprised how easy they made it to close the account. Its a shame Verizon's level 1 support couldn't have done the same thing.
Except the contract she signed allowed no ETFs if she moved into an area with no coverage, which was unilaterally amended by them. That's a significant enough change to have that contract dissolved.
I also love that you think she's "milking her dead husband" by providing the set of circumstances that is putting her in said position. She's not exploiting it for personal benefit, as "milking" would imply. I feel sorry for whatever stooge with mod points rated your comment up.
She lost her husband, who was a marine, and probably served his country in some respect during one of their pointless overseas "conquests" (if you can call soldiers dying and spending trillions of dollars for 10 years without achieving fuck all a "conquest"). Yes, very sad.
But just because her husband died does not magically make her debts and responsibilities go away.
How can you blame the service provider for sending a demand letter at a possibly "stressful" time for her ? What should they do during the billing cycle ? Hold every damn bill until they've verified no immediate relative has recently died ?
She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.
No, you get 365 days after the service member's death until you have to vacate base housing (or lose your housing allowance if you live off base). It's not like they push you out the door after the funeral...
So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?
I realize that's a rhetorical question, but let's see...
"The remote detonated IED, one of those went off, and he took full force," explained Michaela surrounded by pictures of her husband and flowers, still fresh, from his recent funeral. "He died on the chopper on the way to the field hospital."
I'm going to say, longer than that.
I suppose it's technically possible that this is being spun, since she's not specifically talking about the termination fee here, and it doesn't say how long ago he died. Then again...
The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.
She is moving because her husband died. Sure, she could choose to stay, but it's not unreasonable.
But all of this is beside the point. I'm not saying that Verizon should have to do anything...
I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules.
I realize it would be an exception. I might even concede that this particular case isn't necessarily clear. (For example: Whose fault is it that she went with a plan and a provider that charges $350 early-termination fees?)
But I was replying to an AC who said this:
So he died. Get over it.
That is not an OK thing to say. Not now, not in ten years. If it's tangential, it's tangential, but you do not tell a grieving widow to "get over it."
Or, to be more precise: It is allowed (freedom of speech), but incredibly insensitive.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Your imagery here is certainly interesting and somewhat entertaining, but IMHO, the idea that a 'corporation' is necessarily and naturally devoid of humanity and moral code is absolutely bullshit.
A society is composed of a collection of individuals who may or may not be working towards a common goal (typically they are, such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"). This collection of individuals always has some composite set of morals, even if they are few and mild. The stronger the moral compass of individuals, the stronger the morals of the whole is likely to be.
A corporation should be no different, and to claim otherwise is simply a cowardly way of shirking personal responsibility on the part of CEOs all the way down to janitors. The apparent greed of a corporation is not intrinsic to the corporation as an idea, but only exists because of the greed exhibited by the individuals it is comprised of.
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
I worked for Apple a while back in a call center. Customer service and stuff, answering questions about where people's iPod orders were, sorting out returns. Policy at the time was that any iPod with a personalised engraving on the back was non-returnable, NO EXCEPTIONS.
So I get a call from a man who wanted to return an iPod he had bought and personalised for his son as a birthday present. So I explained the policy, and asked why he wanted to return it as per S.O.P., and as it turns out - his son was dead. He had died the week before his birthday in a car accident.
I asked no more questions, cleared the return right then and there, and told him a courier would be by in the morning with a box to collect it. And his card would be refunded as soon as it reached the depot. My team leader didn't question my actions even for a second.
Bottom line here, yeah, he could have been lying. But one wrongly returned iPod vs the publicity fallout if I said no? Being an insensitive policy-following robot vs having some compassion? The whole point of having live humans on the front line is for customer relations, just for situations like this, and when I was at Apple they at least had a fucking clue about how to do it right - we had a lot of training and we were expected to make judgement calls on balancing the interests of the customer and the company.
This shit from Verizon? Bad. Customer. Service. And it's coming back to bite them in the ass - they're the phone company that slapped a grieving soldier's widow with a $350 fee because she wanted to move back home to be with her family. The damage control alone is going to cost a lot more than $350, and they could have avoided it all if their front line CSRs had the power and the judgement to waive the ETF if the situation merits it. Either someone made a bad call, or they just can't do it at all - and do you really want to deal with a company that doesn't trust its customer point-of-contact employees with the most basic ability to solve customer problems?
Since we're sharing anecdotes, here's my T-Mobile experience.
Had a 2 year contract but was planning to move out of the country. I talked with a rep at one of their stores and was told if they don't offer service in the new country I can cancel service without an early termination fee, also I need proof of address in the new country. No problem, the rep also offers to suspend service for up to 6 months while I make my initial move, get proof of address and come back for final paperwork. Sweet, so no charge while in the (obviously no service) country for 6 months, I fly back with proof of new address and I should be golden yes?
Nope, when I get back I find out they reactivated my account soon after I left, I'm charged with 6 months of service and a $250 early termination charge. I politely explain to the new rep (different store) how I have all the paperwork with me today because of the conversation with the old rep who set everything up and explained exactly what I needed. It's obvious no calls were made over that time period and previously I'd never had a late payment. Why would I leave for 6 months and NOT suspend my account? The rep agreed it made sense, but "Can't do anything", finally the supervisor agreed to waive the early termination fee and give me some kind of "discount" but I still owe several hundred dollars.
I was told if I went back to the original store... found the same rep, got them to admit fault, then THEY could waive the other fees. Yeah right, that was in another state and I couldn't remember exactly which rep anyways.
So I head back to my new home, T-Mobile account closed with an outstanding balance. I refuse to pay a cent since they're bastards and now a credit collection agency is hounding my parents. Such fun.
Knowing my dad, he'll probably pay the whole thing just to make them stop calling. I hate T-Mobile.
There's my anecdote. They're really worthless aren't they?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
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.
You can bet your life it was an executive decision to staff the call center with low-paid droids incapable of acting on moral discretion. This is the business model they choose to create, where 99% of their interaction with the public is through low-paid droids incapable of moral discretion.
On this model, getting publicly burned in effigy once every six months is a normal cost of business. The phone companies have taken it upon themselves to function as the bulwark of enculturated infantilism (few cost-up-front purchase options). They deserve what they get.
On the other side of the fence, America's enlisted men have roughly the same level of moral discretion when it comes to participating in the wrong war as Verizon's call center droids have in accepting a justifiable termination request.