If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Lifeguard fired for saving drowning man's life   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 138
    More: Florida, Hallandale Beach, medical privacy, physical exams  
•       •       •

17416 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2012 at 2:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-03 10:49:07 PM
This is bullshiat. As he said in the article, was he supposed to let the guy drown?
 
2012-07-03 11:03:56 PM
1/3 of a mile away from your area is pretty far to go. Then again, other guards were apparently able to cover his area of responsibility. On the third hand, apparently his presence doesn't appear to have been the difference between life and death.

The company is technically in the right for firing him, and he is in the right for trying to save a life.

This guy will have a new job in no time. And it's not like he lost out on a high-paying job or one with good benefits or anything.
 
2012-07-03 11:20:06 PM
Damn. $8.25 an hour!?!? That is insane. I made close ten, and that was guarding a POOL filled with mostly old people swimming laps, when I did it.

/Got the certification from a previous job
//Kept the books and paid for recertification (much cheaper than taking the classes all over)
///Fantastic investment for a quick boost in desirability for part time jobs.
 
2012-07-03 11:20:57 PM
FTFA: Lopez said he was sitting at his post at about 1:45 p.m. Monday when someone rushed to his stand asking for help. Lopez said he noticed a man struggling in the water south of his post. The man was previously swimming in an "unprotected" stretch of the beach, city officials confirmed Tuesday.

"It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn't going to say no," he said.

Company officials said the rescue took place about 1,500 feet south of the company's protective boundaries. The unprotected area has signs alerting beachgoers to swim at their own risk.

By the time Lopez arrived, several witnesses had pulled the unidentified man out of the water. Lopez said the man appeared semi-conscious and had water in his lungs.

Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.


WTF? So if someone is drowning in the water past an artificial boundary line, you're just supposed to let him drown? Who came up with this nonsense? Ron Paul?
 
2012-07-03 11:25:02 PM
FTFA: After the incident, Lopez said his boss asked him to fill out an incident report. His boss then fired him for leaving his assigned area.

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

Lopez became a lifeguard four months ago after passing the company's requirements, which include swimming and physical exams. The job pays $8.25 an hour, the lifeguards said.

Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue and were on the phone with 911 operators.

"The beach remained protected at all times," Ellis said.



If the beach remained protected at all times, then why did you fire this guy?
 
2012-07-03 11:28:04 PM
The company's contract expires this year.

Nuff said.
 
2012-07-03 11:36:49 PM
FTFA: Lifeguards in Hallandale Beach work for Orlando-based company Jeff Ellis and Associates, which has been providing lifeguard services for the city's beaches and pools since 2003.

Company officials on Tuesday said Lopez broke a rule that could've put beachgoers in his designated area in jeopardy. The firm could ultimately have been sued, officials said.

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," said supervisor Susan Ellis. "What he did was his own decision. He knew the company rules and did what he thought he needed to do."



So the company is called "Jeff Ellis and Associates". The article mentions "company officials." Then we see that the quote is coming from "supervisor Susan Ellis."

Let me guess. This is a two or three-person operation. Obviously there's Jeff and Susan. They probably run this company out of a house.

I keep coming back to this article, because I think it was immoral for Ellis to fire the lifeguard in this instance. And the "liability" excuse is bullsh*t, because they've already claimed that the lifeguard's zone was protected during the rescue. AND... how much sh*t would they have taken from the press had their lifeguard decided NOT to go help in the rescue? If anything, the Ellis company could have used this as an opportunity for positive publicity and as leverage for convincing the city to extend their contract to cover the unprotected zone as well (meaning more lifeguards and more money). Instead, they decided to be assholes about it. I hope they lose the contract when it comes up for renewal.

This is just wrong. And the more I look at it, the more wrong it gets.
 
2012-07-03 11:47:03 PM
are they lawyers or lifeguards - give me a farkin' break
 
2012-07-03 11:53:27 PM
Keep fiddling, Nero.
 
2012-07-03 11:56:37 PM
By the time Lopez arrived, several witnesses had pulled the unidentified man out of the water. Lopez said the man appeared semi-conscious and had water in his lungs.

Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.



It doesn't sound like the life guard made any difference in rescuing this guy.
 
2012-07-04 12:08:22 AM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: Lifeguards in Hallandale Beach work for Orlando-based company Jeff Ellis and Associates, which has been providing lifeguard services for the city's beaches and pools since 2003.

Company officials on Tuesday said Lopez broke a rule that could've put beachgoers in his designated area in jeopardy. The firm could ultimately have been sued, officials said.

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," said supervisor Susan Ellis. "What he did was his own decision. He knew the company rules and did what he thought he needed to do."


So the company is called "Jeff Ellis and Associates". The article mentions "company officials." Then we see that the quote is coming from "supervisor Susan Ellis."

Let me guess. This is a two or three-person operation. Obviously there's Jeff and Susan. They probably run this company out of a house.

I keep coming back to this article, because I think it was immoral for Ellis to fire the lifeguard in this instance. And the "liability" excuse is bullsh*t, because they've already claimed that the lifeguard's zone was protected during the rescue. AND... how much sh*t would they have taken from the press had their lifeguard decided NOT to go help in the rescue? If anything, the Ellis company could have used this as an opportunity for positive publicity and as leverage for convincing the city to extend their contract to cover the unprotected zone as well (meaning more lifeguards and more money). Instead, they decided to be assholes about it. I hope they lose the contract when it comes up for renewal.

This is just wrong. And the more I look at it, the more wrong it gets.


Ellis and Associates is one of the larger lifeguard certification agencies in the country and (I believe) the only one that is for-profit. They claim to be better than Red Cross because they force their guards to attend 4 hours of training per month and they will secretly audit your facility every year.
 
2012-07-04 12:15:01 AM
Step one: Punch Susan Ellis in the coont so hard her GRANDKIDS will still have the headache when they're born. Then axe all the people at the company who made the call to fire him.

Step two: Give guy the job back.

Step three: Make it illegal for lifeguards who are saving a life to be liable for something that happens when they're busy; zones be damned.
 
2012-07-04 12:22:21 AM
"It was the moral thing to do," Lopez said. "I would never pick a job over my morals."

He's ruled out a lot of professions; politician, banker, CEO...
 
2012-07-04 12:23:23 AM
Hallandale Beach began outsourcing its lifeguards in 2003 as a money-saving measure. The city pays the company about $334,000 annually to provide four lifeguards and one supervisor at the beach year-round, said Dobens. The company also provides lifeguard services at the city's pools as part of the contract.

I hope they put in a lot of additional lifeguards and time at the city's pools. Otherwise, between the 5 staff members that would be $66,800 each per year, and the lifeguards are getting paid $8,25 per hour...
 
2012-07-04 12:48:02 AM

WorldCitizen: Hallandale Beach began outsourcing its lifeguards in 2003 as a money-saving measure. The city pays the company about $334,000 annually to provide four lifeguards and one supervisor at the beach year-round, said Dobens. The company also provides lifeguard services at the city's pools as part of the contract.

I hope they put in a lot of additional lifeguards and time at the city's pools. Otherwise, between the 5 staff members that would be $66,800 each per year, and the lifeguards are getting paid $8,25 per hour...


It's the American way!
 
2012-07-04 12:49:08 AM

WorldCitizen: Hallandale Beach began outsourcing its lifeguards in 2003 as a money-saving measure. The city pays the company about $334,000 annually to provide four lifeguards and one supervisor at the beach year-round, said Dobens. The company also provides lifeguard services at the city's pools as part of the contract.

I hope they put in a lot of additional lifeguards and time at the city's pools. Otherwise, between the 5 staff members that would be $66,800 each per year, and the lifeguards are getting paid $8,25 per hour...


Huh...
Let's assume the lifeguards work 80 hours per week (and get double pay for overtime, because management is so generous)
8.25 x 4 x 40 = $1320 per week & 8.25 x 4 x 40 x 2 = $2640, combined that equals $3960 per week. Since the coverage is year round, multiplying that by 52 is 205,920 dollars. Let's also assume that training and auditing costs equal 1000 per week, which brings the total cost up to 257,920. Add in insurance premiums (let's say forty thousand, just because that's a large number) and the total rises to 297,920 dollars. Which means that the supervisor is getting paid 36,080 dollars (which assumes the company operating this is non-profit, but that point is refuted by the article - I choose to ignore it for the sake of simplicity)

Even with those MASSIVELY inflated estimations, the 334K seems unreasonably high.
 
2012-07-04 12:59:12 AM
I can see the company's point-of-view (I don't agree) but if someone on their "protected" stretch of beach were to drown, they'd be held liable despite the fact the other lifeguards were watching their stretch of the beach. They may also be held liable if the lifeguard didn't save the guy.

However, common sense should overrule the company's decision to fire him. A human life is worth more than "the rules" or a fighting a potential lawsuit. Commend and suspend perhaps, but not outright firing the guy.

What a farked up society we live in where common sense is overruled by legal concerns.
 
2012-07-04 01:09:50 AM

slayer199: I can see the company's point-of-view (I don't agree) but if someone on their "protected" stretch of beach were to drown, they'd be held liable despite the fact the other lifeguards were watching their stretch of the beach. They may also be held liable if the lifeguard didn't save the guy.

However, common sense should overrule the company's decision to fire him. A human life is worth more than "the rules" or a fighting a potential lawsuit. Commend and suspend perhaps, but not outright firing the guy.

What a farked up society we live in where common sense is overruled by legal concerns.


I claim this post as my own.
 
2012-07-04 01:17:14 AM

violentsalvation: slayer199: I can see the company's point-of-view (I don't agree) but if someone on their "protected" stretch of beach were to drown, they'd be held liable despite the fact the other lifeguards were watching their stretch of the beach. They may also be held liable if the lifeguard didn't save the guy.

However, common sense should overrule the company's decision to fire him. A human life is worth more than "the rules" or a fighting a potential lawsuit. Commend and suspend perhaps, but not outright firing the guy.

What a farked up society we live in where common sense is overruled by legal concerns.

I claim this post as my own.


When you work for someone else that person owns you. If you step out of line, they should have the right to fire you, because you are doing only the job that they say you are paid to do -no other job under any conditions. So if you are an armed security guard and you see a child getting raped and murdered across the street -you have to ask your boss before calling 911 -because your time is your boss's time.
 
2012-07-04 01:23:56 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: violentsalvation: slayer199: I can see the company's point-of-view (I don't agree) but if someone on their "protected" stretch of beach were to drown, they'd be held liable despite the fact the other lifeguards were watching their stretch of the beach. They may also be held liable if the lifeguard didn't save the guy.

However, common sense should overrule the company's decision to fire him. A human life is worth more than "the rules" or a fighting a potential lawsuit. Commend and suspend perhaps, but not outright firing the guy.

What a farked up society we live in where common sense is overruled by legal concerns.

I claim this post as my own.

When you work for someone else that person owns you. If you step out of line, they should have the right to fire you, because you are doing only the job that they say you are paid to do -no other job under any conditions. So if you are an armed security guard and you see a child getting raped and murdered across the street -you have to ask your boss before calling 911 -because your time is your boss's time.


Have you stolen the chair you think I sit in?
 
2012-07-04 01:57:15 AM

hb0mb: By the time Lopez arrived, several witnesses had pulled the unidentified man out of the water. Lopez said the man appeared semi-conscious and had water in his lungs.

Lopez said he and a off-duty nurse attended to the man until the city's paramedics arrived.


It doesn't sound like the life guard made any difference in rescuing this guy.


So he should have ignored the fact that there was a possibly dying man because, hey, somebody else is probably going to deal with it?

I wonder what Kitty Genovese would have thought of an attitude like that.
 
2012-07-04 02:26:31 AM
I chalk it up to too many lawyers and not enough common sense.
 
2012-07-04 02:59:32 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Damn. $8.25 an hour!?!? That is insane. I made close ten, and that was guarding a POOL filled with mostly old people swimming laps, when I did it.


Pools don't have the buoyancy that ocean water does. It's an easier job to save people from drowning in the ocean than it is at a pool. You totally earned that wage.
 
2012-07-04 03:02:01 AM
Unfortunately, we all know damn well that if something else were to happen while he was saving the life, he and the company would still have had the crap sued out of them by whoever else was drowning.

All of the stupid rules put into place everywhere to avoid lawsuits are there because at some point, someone sued for it. The rules comes after the fact.
 
2012-07-04 03:06:05 AM
I think the lifeguard can do what he wants and leave his post, even if it means getting fired for doing it. The people he works for can do what they want and fire him, they in turn face whatever consequences arise out of that action.

The drowning guy was swimming in a marked 'at your own risk' area. I question the judgement of a lifeguard who would leave his area, the one swimmers believe is lifeguard protected so he can wander off to an area no one thinks is lifeguard protected.
 
2012-07-04 03:07:24 AM
FTA: "Hallandale Beach began outsourcing its lifeguards in 2003 as a money-saving measure. The city pays the company about $334,000 annually to provide four lifeguards and one supervisor at the beach year-round..."

At $8.25 per hour, the four lifeguards (assuming 40-hour weeks) cost $68,640 per year. That leaves $265,360 for the supervisor and administrative/overhead costs. Somehow, I don't think that they're saving money on the deal. I do, however, believe that a relative of someone on the city council owns the lifeguard company.
 
2012-07-04 03:07:58 AM
Can't think of a better metaphor for modern American culture.

Better to let a man die than risk legal liability for the attempt at saving his life.
 
2012-07-04 03:09:44 AM
Get out of the private sector jobs kid.
Civic occupations are calling him
 
2012-07-04 03:10:23 AM

Because People in power are Stupid:

When you work for someone else that person owns you. If you step out of line, they should have the right to fire you, because you are doing only the job that they say you are paid to do -no other job under any conditions. So if you are an armed security guard and you see a child getting raped and murdered across the street -you have to ask your boss before calling 911 -because your time is your boss's time.


Er. No. No, No.

Every post I've ever worked, it is

Call 911
Call Client Contact
Call Company Supervisor.
 
2012-07-04 03:12:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Damn. $8.25 an hour!?!? That is insane. I made close ten, and that was guarding a POOL filled with mostly old people swimming laps, when I did it.

Pools don't have the buoyancy that ocean water does. It's an easier job to save people from drowning in the ocean than it is at a pool. You totally earned that wage.


Especially if he had to taste Ethyl's denture cream while giving her mouth to mouth.
 
2012-07-04 03:12:43 AM
Scene: A Florida beach. A lifeguard watches the water from his tower. There are many people in the water. In the distance, a man starts waving his arms wildly. The lifeguard jumps down from the tower and runs down the beach towards the man.
"Help, I'm drowning!"
"I see you, don't worry, I'll save you!"
"Hurry, I can't swim!"
"OK, I just need you to swim south a few feet so that I can save you!"
"What part of 'I can't swim!' don't you understand?!"
"I'm not allowed to save people in that area of the water!"
"That's retarded! Save me!"
"Can't, liability! Just swim towards me and I'll come and save you!"
"*gurgle*"
"Oops... *checks map* Huh, he was in my lifesaving area..."
 
2012-07-04 03:16:36 AM
Uh oh, looks like the good folks at Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc. are erasing negative comments on the their Facebook page. Like, in the last five minutes. Somebody's up late tonight, heh.
 
2012-07-04 03:17:04 AM
Now THAT is img1.fark.net
 
2012-07-04 03:21:32 AM
He has a lot more moral fibre than his employers
 
2012-07-04 03:21:58 AM
That's your future, America. Ghost of Christmas Future. Privatization. Outsourcing. Corporatization. Profits over people. I hope this alarms you the way Scrooge got alarmed on seeing his future.

/Actually I saw the Mr. Magoo version, and as a young kid it was influential.
 
2012-07-04 03:24:53 AM
Being named Lopez, I bet it's real hard for him to fight the urge to jump in the water, let alone being paid the big bucks to pull people out of it.

/got nothing.
 
2012-07-04 03:28:35 AM
When something becomes primarily about money....
 
2012-07-04 03:35:48 AM
RULES ARE RULES
www.actwon.com
NOT MY BEACH
FARK YOU, DROWN

These are the principles that have made us who we are.

I would never hire a company like this one, or fire an employee like that one.

$8.50 an hour? Seriously? What an asshole of a company.

Boycott all Ellis beaches -- only drown at non-Ellis beaches!
 
2012-07-04 03:35:50 AM

Kevin72: That's your future, America. Ghost of Christmas Future. Privatization. Outsourcing. Corporatization. Profits over people. I hope this alarms you the way Scrooge got alarmed on seeing his future.


Hmmm... let's look at the factors involved here:

1) Liability laws: blame falls on the government.
2) The decision to outsource: blame falls on the government.
2) The contract under which the lifeguard company was operating: blame falls on the government.

But, yeah, let's blame the private sector.
 
2012-07-04 03:36:56 AM

Fark Me To Tears: And the "liability" excuse is bullsh*t, because they've already claimed that the lifeguard's zone was protected during the rescue. AND... how much sh*t would they have taken from the press had their lifeguard decided NOT to go help in the rescue? If anything, the Ellis company could have used this as an opportunity for positive publicity and as leverage for convincing the city to extend their contract to cover the unprotected zone as well (meaning more lifeguards and more money). Instead, they decided to be assholes about it. I hope they lose the contract when it comes up for renewal.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-04 03:38:38 AM
www.midwestsportsfans.com

Phil thinks you made the right call.
 
2012-07-04 03:42:21 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: WorldCitizen: Hallandale Beach began outsourcing its lifeguards in 2003 as a money-saving measure. The city pays the company about $334,000 annually to provide four lifeguards and one supervisor at the beach year-round, said Dobens. The company also provides lifeguard services at the city's pools as part of the contract.

I hope they put in a lot of additional lifeguards and time at the city's pools. Otherwise, between the 5 staff members that would be $66,800 each per year, and the lifeguards are getting paid $8,25 per hour...

Huh...
Let's assume the lifeguards work 80 hours per week (and get double pay for overtime, because management is so generous)
8.25 x 4 x 40 = $1320 per week & 8.25 x 4 x 40 x 2 = $2640, combined that equals $3960 per week. Since the coverage is year round, multiplying that by 52 is 205,920 dollars. Let's also assume that training and auditing costs equal 1000 per week, which brings the total cost up to 257,920. Add in insurance premiums (let's say forty thousand, just because that's a large number) and the total rises to 297,920 dollars. Which means that the supervisor is getting paid 36,080 dollars (which assumes the company operating this is non-profit, but that point is refuted by the article - I choose to ignore it for the sake of simplicity)

Even with those MASSIVELY inflated estimations, the 334K seems unreasonably high.


um....

4 lifegaurds, I would assume there is more than 1 shift per day, and they dont work 7 days a week. thats more than 4 people, folks.
 
2012-07-04 03:43:39 AM

DrPainMD: Kevin72: That's your future, America. Ghost of Christmas Future. Privatization. Outsourcing. Corporatization. Profits over people. I hope this alarms you the way Scrooge got alarmed on seeing his future.

Hmmm... let's look at the factors involved here:

1) Liability laws: blame falls on the government.
2) The decision to outsource: blame falls on the government.
2) The contract under which the lifeguard company was operating: blame falls on the government.

But, yeah, let's blame the private sector.


Dude, no offense, but in this case, a private company made a decision to reward a hero with a pink slip. that is not the government.

your #2 point does have merit.
 
2012-07-04 03:45:16 AM
Why in the fark is there even discussion taking place under a Florida (we are idiots) tag,
 
2012-07-04 03:48:33 AM
City pays 334,000 to a private company for four lifeguards, working four months out of the year, who are paid $8.25 an hour by the private company, and one supervisor probably not making much more than them.

As someone in the comments of TFA pointed out, what a hilarious republican wet dream scenario. Job Creators.
 
2012-07-04 03:51:14 AM
I was on break, boss.
 
2012-07-04 03:54:25 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: violentsalvation: slayer199: I can see the company's point-of-view (I don't agree) but if someone on their "protected" stretch of beach were to drown, they'd be held liable despite the fact the other lifeguards were watching their stretch of the beach. They may also be held liable if the lifeguard didn't save the guy.

However, common sense should overrule the company's decision to fire him. A human life is worth more than "the rules" or a fighting a potential lawsuit. Commend and suspend perhaps, but not outright firing the guy.

What a farked up society we live in where common sense is overruled by legal concerns.

I claim this post as my own.

When you work for someone else that person owns you. If you step out of line, they should have the right to fire you, because you are doing only the job that they say you are paid to do -no other job under any conditions. So if you are an armed security guard and you see a child getting raped and murdered across the street -you have to ask your boss before calling 911 -because your time is your boss's time.


That might be the case in some places.... But if I see a crime against a person or an on view felony, while on uniform and on duty within 2 blocks of my designated area, I will be held liable if I do not act.
 
2012-07-04 03:55:36 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Damn. $8.25 an hour!?!? That is insane. I made close ten, and that was guarding a POOL filled with mostly old people swimming laps, when I did it.

Pools don't have the buoyancy that ocean water does. It's an easier job to save people from drowning in the ocean than it is at a pool. You totally earned that wage.


Yeah because pools have rip tides....
 
2012-07-04 03:57:41 AM

I sound fat: DrPainMD: Kevin72: That's your future, America. Ghost of Christmas Future. Privatization. Outsourcing. Corporatization. Profits over people. I hope this alarms you the way Scrooge got alarmed on seeing his future.

Hmmm... let's look at the factors involved here:

1) Liability laws: blame falls on the government.
2) The decision to outsource: blame falls on the government.
2) The contract under which the lifeguard company was operating: blame falls on the government.

But, yeah, let's blame the private sector.

Dude, no offense, but in this case, a private company made a decision to reward a hero with a pink slip. that is not the government.

your #2 point does have merit.


See point #1: liability laws.
 
2012-07-04 03:59:44 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Damn. $8.25 an hour!?!? That is insane. I made close ten, and that was guarding a POOL filled with mostly old people swimming laps, when I did it.

Pools don't have the buoyancy that ocean water does. It's an easier job to save people from drowning in the ocean than it is at a pool. You totally earned that wage.


img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report