Should thief get pension just because of bad health?
January 22, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Dubious decisions, Special Report
Calling it an act of mercy, an employer has decided to allow a warehouse worker to collect his pension despite the fact that he stole on the job.
George Seeholzer was fired by the town of Palm Beach, FL, for allegedly stealing four car tires from the town’s warehouse and selling them for $250 on the Internet.
Now the Town Council has voted 4-1 to allow him to still collect his pension of $15,700 a year. He’ll also be allowed to retain his medical benefits at a cost of $172 a month, which is half the premium. He was a 12-year employee of the town.
Council members’ reasoning: They say Seeholzer, who is 66, is in poor health and would have lost his health benefits along with the pension. One council member called his situation “heartbreaking.”
Employees of Palm Beach terminated for unethical conduct aren’t eligible for their pension unless the council takes the unusual step of deciding to let them have it, according to the Palm Beach Daily News.
Seeholzer’s firing cost him $68,000 in early-retirement pay.
The one council member who voted against giving him the benefits, Susan Markin, said granting him retirement sends the wrong message to other town employees.
He filed a lawsuit, too
On top of all this, Seeholzer sued the town alleging it owes him unpaid overtime. In exchange for granting him retirement, Seeholzer has dropped his lawsuit.
Seeholzer claimed he planned but forgot to give the town the $250 he got from the sale of the tires.
What do you think about the outcome of this case? What would your employer do if an employee stole company property worth $250? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Tags: medical benefits, pension, stealing
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
It seems like they rewarded the man for stealing. That does not send a good message to the other employees or the taxpayers for that matter.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Management and HR can disagree with the decision of the town council, which does appear inappropriate, but this is part of the challenge of working for local governments. Elected officials can make such decision, based on community emotions rather than on good management practice. We cringe at the example set, and then go on.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Theft is theft, and should not be rewarded. This employee made the decision to steal public property and should now live with the consequences of his actions. Public employees whose wages, pensions, and benefits are paid for with tax dollars should be held to the highest standard. The council has put the city in jeopardy by setting this precidence. Any rule can be broken, as long as you have a good enough sob story.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
I agree with Susan Markin – this definately sends the wrong message. Of course, I also don’t think the Town Council should have the ability to grant exceptions to the retirement plan…these plans have provisions for a reason!
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
I do not agree with paying out any benefit to people who have been terminated for stealing from an employer, however at the State and Federal levels (and these are our role models?) it is a pretty prevasive custom. Federal and State employees (at some levels) and even some Municipalities give benefits in the form of pensions, golden parachutes, accrued time, even stock options to people who have been arrested and convicted of crimes against the employer.
This is a sorry statement for our society and one of the reasons we are in our current economic state where hard working people are losing jobs, retirement benefits and medical coverage. It’s a disgrace
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Wow, seems like someone needs to review things more closely prior to termination if they wanted to grant the benefits because it seems as if they just opened themselves up to a potential discrimination issue. Prior to terminating for unethical conduct they could have asked him to pay the money back and tender a resignation if; the amount was such that they were willing to do so and if they are willing to take that stance with others in the same situation. Losing his job is appropriate and does send the message that they do not tolerate theft.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
We would have terminated the employee. Because we are a private company, he would have kept whatever is in his 401k retirement plan and since he is 66 and would be eligible for Medicare, he would probably not elect COBRA. If he had unused vaction time or was owed overtime for the past pay period , we would pay him that but nothing else.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Stealing is a problem period! The employee knew it was against company policy and when you break the rules you risk getting caught and losing everything. I agree with the council member who voted against giving the employee his health benefits and pension. The wrong message is being sent to employees and now HR has to give the same consideration to other employees who may break the rules and have a hardship.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Sounds like the followed the procedure they have in place. Also sounds like there are some very compasionate people on the town council. He did loose the $68,000 which is a stiff penalty for a $250 theft. If they don’t give him the retirement he would probably go on the welfare roll so either way the public is going to have to pay him. Hopefully, not paying back the $250 after he sold the tires was a oversite on his part.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
He is 66 and would not go on welfare. He is Soc Sec eligible if he worked in the private sector until age 54 – he has only 12 yrs of Town employment. He would have Medicare and be in the same situation as most legit and honest workers. Local and State gov are NOTORIOUS for poor fiduciary practices in regard to pensions because the decision makers take from the system themselves, are afraid to lose a vote or await their own pension benefit that may benefit by these poor practices.
Tom is 100% correct in his comments. Government employees can also contribute to 401 type deferred compensation plans (457 plans)for their retirement.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
For what it’s worth, what thief robs you and sells your stuff with the intention of forwarding the proceeds to you? And then forgets to do it?
It is nice to hear that human compassion can prevail over cold policy when those involved believe it is warranted.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
This is so very typical of municipal (and other) government management practices. I have NO compassion for the guy unless he sold the tires to buy food for his starving children. They should press charges and the courts should require extensive community service work for betraying the public trust. To me, the $68,000 penalty is just fine. One member called this “heartbreaking?” I DON’T THINK SO.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
As an employee of local government, I take offense at Karen’s comment about governments being “notorious for poor fiduciary practices in regards to pensions”. Our state retirement plan is one of the best in the country. Decision makers are objective. In fact at the local level, few, if any, of the decision makers are part of the retirement system. It is unfair to make judgements about the decisions this council made. We do not have all of the information.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
The logic behind the town’s policy is flawed; “unless the council takes the unusual step of deciding to let them have it”… past practice would come into play. To easily companies use the “discretionary” term; while this leaves room for the company to make a case by case assessment it also puts them at risk of not being consistent and possibly being unintentionally discriminatory. In this case, if Seeholzer were 20 would the same decision have been made? (Probably not) In that scenario the difference would be age bias…
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Termination and forfeiture of $68+k is totally legit. No one “accidentally” steals. His acts were Compassion is one thing. Stupidity is another. I’ll bet there are any number of people currently unemployed who could step into his position and do his job with integrity and honesty. Besides, lest others get the idea that it pays to steal from the employer, someone needs to serve as a poster child. Compassion should not be a substitute for personal responsibility, but our society is rapidly moving in the everyone’s-a-victim-evil-evil-employer mode. This employee’s activities were premeditated. Provide compassion for those who deserve it. Provide jobs to those who deserve employment.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I also work in local government and see things like this happen way to much. It seems strange to me that once he got fired there was missing overtime pay. He probably sued because he was fired which was because he did something wrong. I have seen local governemnt back down from lawsuits many many times. I wonder if there was a union involved?
He must have had a good paying job to get a $15,700/year pension after only 12 years. It is a shame he didn’t apprecaite how lucky he was and behave responsibly.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The City must give the employee credit for the retirement and health benefits he earned during the years he was not a thief (assuming he never stole before and wasn’t caught). He lost his future benefits of $68,000. The city lost an employee which will cost them money to replace. Nothing in the article mentioned if he had to pay restitution for the tires or give the City the $250 he made on them through the sale.
The City was right in giving him his retirement and also right in termination. $250 for the tires versus $68,000 in lost future benefits seems enough of a loss to punish the employee for his wrong actions without taking away his retirement and health benefits. Because he is in ill health and the City denied his benefits they run the risk of being sued by him or his family.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
For those who feel the Council was compassionate, I am not saying you are idiots………
But if anyone truly believes that this is the first and only time he has stolen from the town, and he was unfortunate enough to get caught the very first time he did it………well then you are a moron.
His current health condition should have no impact of this situation. Thief got caught stealing and suffered the consequences. Then because he is caught he sues……………and the council feels bad for him and gives him a pension and benefits.
If I see a story in the paper in the future about how the town of Palm Beach is having budget issues I am going to laugh my ass off.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I’m glad he was in good enough health to carry 4 tires and sell them on e-bay. What a farce!
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
What was this guy doing during his 12 years tenure?
He may have ben doing the same thing?