Lifeguard fired for saving drowning victim

[Andara Bledin]

Go for it. I'd personally never tell someone that but that's your right I guess.

So, you have no trouble saying that online, but in a face to face, you wouldn't.

Which would pretty much leave any position you take in any online debate suspect.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

To be fair, you sorta did. You said the lifeguard shouldn't have intervened because it wasn't his job. Wouldn't this situation be very similar? After all, it isn't the business of the truck driver to stop and aid the dying family and it would keep him from his duties that he's being paid for.

I said that he was leaving a lot of people unwatched which is easily grounds to be fired.

So, you have no trouble saying that online, but in a face to face, you wouldn't.

Which would pretty much leave any position you take in any online debate suspect.

^-.-^

Ironic. I never said that online either.

[ngc_7331]

I said that he was leaving a lot of people unwatched which is easily grounds to be fired.

No he wasn't. There were other lifeguards on duty there. So, what's next?

[Greenday]

No he wasn't. There were other lifeguards on duty there. So, what's next?

Which we later found out after I had already posted.

It's also an insurance liability. There's plenty of legal reasons that are sound for firing him. That doesn't make them right but it's not like they did anything legally wrong for firing him.

[Andara Bledin]

Go for it. I'd personally never tell someone that but that's your right I guess.

Except that, as Peppergirl pointed out, you already did:

Anything that happens off their property isn't their business.

So, which is it? Are they supposed to ignore everything off "their property," aka outside their jurisdiction, or should they act like compassionate human beings and make the effort to help?

I said that he was leaving a lot of people unwatched which is easily grounds to be fired.

Regardless of the fact that this was a poor assumption even before it was refuted by both the lifeguard and the owner of the company, it's still bad practice.

Someone else did the math in the Reddit thread and the chances of anyone on the beach at any given time requiring the aid of a lifeguard versus the 100% positive knowledge that someone on the beach actually requires the aid of a lifeguard is so utterly unbalanced, that there is just no question of what should be done.

And it still doesn't address why it's not ok to leave his post to save someone drowning who is outside his range but it is ok to leave his post to save someone who is drowning inside his range. There is backup on hand; there has to be. Nobody can be legally expected to go their entire shift without a bathroom break, so there has to be at least one guard in the wings to cover, and likely also to cover in case someone needs to be rescued. Because the people under his watch are just as vulnerable when he's saving someone within his area as when he's saving someone outside of it.

^-.-^

[ngc_7331]

And I did a little research, because apparently the laws are a little different in each state. But in the state of Florida, a claim can be denied for injuries incurred while deviating from the course of their employment. So the insurance wouldn't have to pay one red dime to him had he gotten injured.

[Andara Bledin]

And I did a little research, because apparently the laws are a little different in each state. But in the state of Florida, a claim can be denied for injuries incurred while deviating from the course of their employment. So the insurance wouldn't have to pay one red dime to him had he gotten injured.

So, he basically put neither his company nor his charges in any harm by his actions, and quite probably saved the victim from more severe damage due to drowning.

I have yet to see any information presented that explains any reasonable or rational downside to his actions that should result in being fired.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Please, *please* quit the pretense that whether they legally could fire him has anything to do with anything. That's not in dispute. The question is whether it was the right thing to do, not whether they had the right to do it.

I believe Florida's an at-will state anyway. So they can fire anybody for no reason at all.

[Greenday]

Please, *please* quit the pretense that whether they legally could fire him has anything to do with anything. That's not in dispute. The question is whether it was the right thing to do, not whether they had the right to do it.

I believe Florida's an at-will state anyway. So they can fire anybody for no reason at all.

Since there was no harm to the employee and nothing bad stemmed from it, it was the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint.

[Gravekeeper]

Also, contrary to what you think, the later comments were only vaguely directed at you; they were more directed at Gk.

That's okay, you don't seem to know my position either and are just filling in what you think it is to create an adversary position to argue against. -.-

My original point was simply that this was a sucky situation all around and the media was turning it into rage porn. Which is likely half the reason there's such a public backlash. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't. If something had happened while he was out of his zone, the company likely would have been sued. Which is precisely why the company's rules exist in the first place whether you like them or not

The public that's raging at the company right now is the same public that would sue the fuck out of this company in a heartbeat had something happened while he was out of zone.

The rules exist because people suck.

[Andara Bledin]

Except for the fact that there never needed to be a situation in the first place.

If something had happened while he was out of his zone, the backup guard would have handled it. Just like if something had happened while he was in the bathroom, or while he was handling something else. There was a protocol in place for him leaving his chair and it was followed by all involved, which means that the people in his zone were only left unattended long enough for the cover to get from the main house out to the chair.

The person who fired him was being a bureaucratic pissant, and then, because he couldn't back down and risk being seen as weak, he followed it up by firing two more people who would have done the same.

The owner, who likely has some responsibility as the architect of this situation, is now throwing that guy to the wolves while offering everybody else involved their positions back.

Anybody with half a brain in their heads would have lauded Lopez for doing the right thing, explained how it was pure fortune that there was somebody available to handle it at all, since it's not part of the guarded section of beach, and then had a company meeting explaining, in private that they're in the business of making a profit, and saving lives is just a byproduct.

Fuck, if they were really worried about liability, they could have just docked the guard for doing "personal business" while on the clock, and it would have probably never hit the papers in the first place, making it a matter of Lopez' actions not condoned by the company with the added bonus of getting money for the save off of their turf in the form of wages not needing to be paid.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

If something had happened while he was out of his zone, the backup guard would have handled it.

Lets read your own links.

Per Mr Ellis:

“Did leaving his lifeguard zone to respond to this situation expose the people that we have responsibility for?” he wondered. “I’m trying to find out if we had someone else cover the tower while he was gone.”

Also the company's protocol:

Mr. Ellis initially explained from Florida that lifeguards are permitted to go outside their zone to save someone they can see in distress. But in situations when the person can’t be seen – as it appears was the case in this incident – lifeguards are expected to call the fire rescue squad.

IE its not as draconian as the media is playing it up to be. Also upon review:

Lopez said he knew this wasn't part of his zone, but it was in his line of vision, and he couldn't sit back and watch someone go under.

IE after reviewing the situation, he's actually within protocol.

The person who fired him was being a bureaucratic pissant

"They didn't tell me in a bad way. It was more like they were sorry, but rules are rules," Lopez said.

and then, because he couldn't back down and risk being seen as weak, he followed it up by firing two more people who would have done the same.

Two lifeguards have quit in protest of Lopez being fired, according to the Washington Post. On Wednesday, the company said it would immediately review the incident, the Sun Sentinel reported July 5.

Every article says 2 quit in protest. Only one article says one of them claims he was fired.

Fuck, if they were really worried about liability

Florida is a horrifically litigous state so yes I assume they were quite worried.

-they could have just docked the guard for doing "personal business" while on the clock, and it would have probably never hit the papers in the first place-

I don't think anyone here claimed the company handle the situation well. I'm just saying the company isn't as heartlessly evil as you or the media is painting it either.

Don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity. Especially with a state that has its own Fark tag. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Every article says 2 quit in protest. Only one article says one of them claims he was fired.

One of a pair of brothers started the Reddit conversation. He states at the top that 3 were fired, he walked the day of the incident, and I believe his brother is one of the ones fired.

It doesn't matter that every other article says the same thing when pretty much all of them are just parroting the original report without any additional detail. it's the one with expanded coverage that actually has expanded coverage.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I still don't quite get one thing: any other time I've ever heard of a business investigating or thinking over an incident for a few days before deciding whether or not to fire someone, they call it a suspension, or a leave of absence, or something along those lines. Why did this one fire him outright with the condition that they might re-hire him if it turned out OK?

[Peppergirl]

Update: He was offered his job back, but declined.

linky