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)   Company explains why it fired lifeguard who saved life of man swimming outside designated area: "We are not a fire-rescue operation...We limit what we do to the protected swimming zones that we've agreed to service"   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 524
    More: Followup, Hallandale Beach, speed limits  
•       •       •

15975 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 3:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 03:36:46 AM
Who is running this company?
 
2012-07-05 03:51:37 AM
Business is business.
 
2012-07-05 03:53:18 AM
when people say they want to run government like a business this is kind of what i would like to avoid and why it doesn't work like a business...
 
2012-07-05 03:54:09 AM
While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!
 
2012-07-05 03:54:37 AM

cman: Who is running this company?


Nobody I want in charge of people who are dedicated to saving lives.
 
2012-07-05 03:54:45 AM
Just need you to sign this contract before I can resuscitate you, sir. Sir?
 
2012-07-05 03:55:41 AM
Sometimes the arguments against privatization just write themselves.
 
2012-07-05 03:58:02 AM
This is what happens in a litigious society. Hell, if he had injured the guy he was saving, outside his company's patrol area, the company could have been sued. Likewise as was stated in the article, if something happened in the company's contracted partol area and this guy wasn't there, guess who's going to get sued.
 
2012-07-05 03:58:03 AM
The company is completely right. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.

A reprimand would have been enough.

But trying to justify it now is dumb. That shiat was so yesterday. Now they tear the band-aid off anew and blood is everywhere. Internet sharks smell that and pounce. They already took down their FB page. They will probably take down their contact webpage. They are basically just in a world of hurt and instead of hunkering down and weathering it, they just keep picking at the scab.

Dumb.
 
2012-07-05 03:59:38 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The company is completely right. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.


The company is WRONG and should lose it's contract as a result.
 
2012-07-05 04:00:54 AM
If your business philosophy chooses proper zonation over protecting human life, your business philosophy is wrong and quite possibly evil.

Simple as that. You may be legally right, but in the eyes of all gods and the universe, you are dead wrong.
 
2012-07-05 04:01:05 AM
Yup, still douche-y
 
2012-07-05 04:01:33 AM
They added "fark you and everyone else, by the way. Thanks."
 
2012-07-05 04:02:57 AM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: AverageAmericanGuy: The company is completely right. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.

The company is WRONG and should lose it's contract as a result.


No, they are technically correct...

1.bp.blogspot.com

...and morally despicable.
 
2012-07-05 04:04:01 AM

Confabulat: If your business philosophy chooses proper zonation over protecting human life, your business philosophy is wrong and quite possibly evil.

Simple as that. You may be legally right, but in the eyes of all gods and the universe, you are dead wrong.


Any decent company would have given him a bonus and other rewards for going above and beyond the call of duty, which can only serve to enhance the company's prestige and value to future customers. And that's looking at it cynically.
 
2012-07-05 04:05:39 AM

jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!


Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.
 
2012-07-05 04:07:06 AM
puu.sh
"I can do nothin' fer ye, son. I got a tourniquet and the proper equipment to treat a chest wound, but I've got to hold on to them for our payin', contracted customers."
 
2012-07-05 04:07:35 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.


As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.
 
2012-07-05 04:08:38 AM
Liability.
 
2012-07-05 04:08:55 AM
buckler: Any decent company would have given him a bonus and other rewards for going above and beyond the call of duty, which can only serve to enhance the company's prestige and value to future customers.

Until something goes wrong and they get sued by someone who uses the fact that they were outside of the zone they were contracted to protect as part of the prosecution.

opening up the company to liability issues.

I don't get why anyone is surprised at the actions of the company, it's dumb, but this is the society we live in now. No different than the people who get fired from convenience store jobs from trying to stop a robbery vs just handing the money over.

I prefer to think of corporations as mindless automatons and not as caring feeling humans :P

// the company you want to look out for is the one that would let him work for a little longer THEN fire him.
 
2012-07-05 04:09:09 AM
Lopez was fired Monday after he was summoned to help a man who had been struggling in the water south of his station. The man had been at an "unprotected" stretch of the beach, where visitors are warned to swim at their own risk, city officials said.

Let me see if I understand this. Theoretically, if a random stranger had jumped in the water to save this guy, he would've been branded a hero. But when a guy, whose actual job is to save drowning people, steps up to save his life, he gets fired for doing his job outside his jurisdiction. THEN, the department tries to save face with this lame-ass article?

I hope the PR shiatstorm they're about to face is worth it.
 
2012-07-05 04:09:44 AM
When I was in college I took one Organizational Management course taught by a visiting Business Prof. Part of the course was a unit on "Business Ethics", which basically boiled down to:

Step 1: Professor/textbook states an ethical dilemma
Step 2: We figure out which solution makes the company the most money.
Step 3: Whichever solution we found in step 2 is the ethical solution, because "a company's only ethical responsibility is the fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder."

Fortunately, I was able to hold my nose enough to regurgitate all this on the exam.
 
2012-07-05 04:09:50 AM

buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.


And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.
 
2012-07-05 04:09:52 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The company is completely right. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.

A reprimand would have been enough.

But trying to justify it now is dumb. That shiat was so yesterday. Now they tear the band-aid off anew and blood is everywhere. Internet sharks smell that and pounce. They already took down their FB page. They will probably take down their contact webpage. They are basically just in a world of hurt and instead of hunkering down and weathering it, they just keep picking at the scab.

Dumb.


fark that. They already jumped the gun and nuked their whole site.
 
2012-07-05 04:10:02 AM

jtown: ..and morally despicable.


Which means they are WRONG. Morally despicable AND having as a job "protecting life" do not work together in this case. The city should pay out the remaining part of the contract and kick their life guards off the beach. Replace that company's "service" with Life Guards who are rewarded for saving lives.

Doing the wrong thing should not be rewarded. The company should be forced out of business.
 
2012-07-05 04:10:39 AM
What a blithering moron might look like.
 
2012-07-05 04:10:53 AM

Shrinkwrap: Liability.


There is more of a problem with assholes spreading fear of rampant liability lawsuits against good Samaritans than there is a problem with actual liability lawsuits against good Samaritans.
 
2012-07-05 04:11:07 AM

lordargent: buckler: Any decent company would have given him a bonus and other rewards for going above and beyond the call of duty, which can only serve to enhance the company's prestige and value to future customers.

Until something goes wrong and they get sued by someone who uses the fact that they were outside of the zone they were contracted to protect as part of the prosecution.


In Florida, a trained responder or their employer can't be sued for exercising their training in an attempt to save a life. If I'm wrong, show me.
 
2012-07-05 04:12:00 AM
kevinatilusa: Step 1: Professor/textbook states an ethical dilemma

Was his name Tyler Durden :P
 
2012-07-05 04:13:37 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.


By that reasoning, no one should ever attempt to save anyone anywhere, since doing so would prevent one from saving others in other locations.
 
2012-07-05 04:13:53 AM
www.the-leaping-lamp.com

Approves.

/And let's hope we don't cover him!
 
2012-07-05 04:17:14 AM
USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-07-05 04:17:49 AM
fishinweb.com
 
2012-07-05 04:18:02 AM
While firing is a bit much there (this is more a minor policy violation with only a small chance of being really disastrous, like a security guard taking a smoke break), the company is in fact correct in that some punishment is appropriate.

A more measured/appropriate response would be to put up a sign making it clear that you shouldn't swim in this area/beyond this point due to lack of lifeguard, and dock the guard an hour's pay or something. Problem solved, beach rendered safer, and no need to replace an employee.
 
2012-07-05 04:18:07 AM

buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.

By that reasoning, no one should ever attempt to save anyone anywhere, since doing so would prevent one from saving others in other locations.


He was required to save lives in his contracted zone. Leaving the zone for any reason puts his clients' lives at risk. If someone needed help in his contracted area, he would be required too help, my previous statements notwithstanding.
 
2012-07-05 04:19:19 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.

By that reasoning, no one should ever attempt to save anyone anywhere, since doing so would prevent one from saving others in other locations.

He was required to save lives in his contracted zone. Leaving the zone for any reason puts his clients' lives at risk. If someone needed help in his contracted area, he would be required too help, my previous statements notwithstanding.


Would you seriously watch a person drown three meters outside your "zone" and do nothing?
 
2012-07-05 04:21:06 AM
Legal Liability. Memorize the term because it's the string pulling company policy.

When our own laws that we enforce on ourselves force us to choose between doing something that will get you fired and doing what is morally correct what does that say about our laws, and what does it say about our morality?

Pro move by the people running the lifeguard company would be some praise for the rescuer, a reminder that the beach the man was saved from was unguarded and that the man was very lucky to get help, and mention your company name or whatever for publicity.

But I guess rules are rules, for what that's worth.
 
2012-07-05 04:21:11 AM
If you are trained in lifesaving skills, it would be morally reprehensible to just do nothing and allow someone to drown. A company that demands that of their employees for whatever reason is likewise morally reprehensible.
 
2012-07-05 04:21:45 AM

JonnyBGoode: If you are trained in lifesaving skills, it would be morally reprehensible to just do nothing and allow someone to drown. A company that demands that of their employees for whatever reason is likewise morally reprehensible.


THAT.
 
2012-07-05 04:22:26 AM
buckler: In Florida, a trained responder or their employer can't be sued for exercising their training in an attempt to save a life. If I'm wrong, show me.

I'm fairly certain you can sue anyone for anything (the suite may get tossed out of the court on its ass, but that's a different thing entirely).

I don't know about Florida law (I'm on the other side of the country), If you have a reference to said law, please provide it (Edit. NM, quick google search).

I presume there are holes in the law that a scummy lawyer could exploit. I doubt it's just plain "You can't sue these guys when they're on the job, even if they're negligent and not up on their training and were out last night chugging beers before getting two hours of sleep before coming to work in the morning")

Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent man would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

So, it would become a legal argument about what a prudent man would have done.
 
2012-07-05 04:23:28 AM

buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.

By that reasoning, no one should ever attempt to save anyone anywhere, since doing so would prevent one from saving others in other locations.

He was required to save lives in his contracted zone. Leaving the zone for any reason puts his clients' lives at risk. If someone needed help in his contracted area, he would be required too help, my previous statements notwithstanding.

Would you seriously watch a person drown three meters outside your "zone" and do nothing?


Hell no. I was explaining his duties. And person of conscience would say duties be damned and save the life, but it doesnt absolve him of the consequences of his actions (like being fired).
 
2012-07-05 04:23:54 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Leaving the zone for any reason puts his clients' lives at risk


Yea - There are some people who's lives do not deserve saving

// FlyingLizardOfDoom for example
 
2012-07-05 04:24:35 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.


And as a human being and a citizen of Planet Earth, his duties first and foremost involve him helping save another person in need. Everything else is details.
 
2012-07-05 04:24:42 AM
Supposing a building security gaurd witnesses a robbery across the street of the building he is watching. Instead of calling the police, he leaves his post to assist. He scares the robbers off, but while comforting the victim, the building he is assigned to is robbed by another group of criminals who took this as a good opportunity to steal. What happens to the security guard? Fired? Reprimanded? Or no action? He abandons his post (albeit for a good reason) and his company is now held liable for the stolen property.

/ps, this scenario happened locally.
 
2012-07-05 04:25:56 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: buckler: FlyingLizardOfDoom: jtown: While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues.

Wrong! Your first responsibility is to save lives, you farking twunt!

Wrong. His first duty is to his employer, his second, more distant duty is to the public.

As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.

And as an employee, his duties exist only within the contracted areas, and to leave them to save a life puts other lives in danger.

By that reasoning, no one should ever attempt to save anyone anywhere, since doing so would prevent one from saving others in other locations.

He was required to save lives in his contracted zone. Leaving the zone for any reason puts his clients' lives at risk. If someone needed help in his contracted area, he would be required too help, my previous statements notwithstanding.

Would you seriously watch a person drown three meters outside your "zone" and do nothing?

Hell no. I was explaining his duties. And person of conscience would say duties be damned and save the life, but it doesnt absolve him of the consequences of his actions (like being fired).


And I was talking about his employer's response to that action, which should have been positive.
 
2012-07-05 04:26:42 AM
You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.
 
2012-07-05 04:27:28 AM

EKU Colonel: Supposing a building security gaurd witnesses a robbery across the street of the building he is watching. Instead of calling the police, he leaves his post to assist. He scares the robbers off, but while comforting the victim, the building he is assigned to is robbed by another group of criminals who took this as a good opportunity to steal. What happens to the security guard? Fired? Reprimanded? Or no action? He abandons his post (albeit for a good reason) and his company is now held liable for the stolen property.

/ps, this scenario happened locally.


He calls 911, draws his weapon, and maintains his post. There are no lives at risk, only property.
 
2012-07-05 04:28:05 AM

EKU Colonel: /ps, this scenario happened locally.


The real issue here is why the hell did the building only have one security guard?
 
2012-07-05 04:28:28 AM

lordargent: I don't get why anyone is surprised at the actions of the company, it's dumb, but this is the society we live in now. No different than the people who get fired from convenience store jobs from trying to stop a robbery vs just handing the money over.


I know that you aren't agreeing with the companies decision, so I'm not hating on you.

I just want to point out that this is even worse than the convenience store analogy. In that instance, usually no-one's life is in immediate danger and more importantly the actions of the clerk rarely make a difference as to whether someone lives or dies.

In the case of the lifeguard, if he failed to act because of 'policy', someone could actually die.

I can weather these stupid rules to some extent. It's annoying that good samaritans can't often act but if the only consequence is loss of property I think most people can grin and bear it. But the loss of a human life is never something that should be sacrificed because of company policy. Never.
 
2012-07-05 04:28:46 AM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: jtown: ..and morally despicable.

Which means they are WRONG. Morally despicable AND having as a job "protecting life" do not work together in this case. The city should pay out the remaining part of the contract and kick their life guards off the beach. Replace that company's "service" with Life Guards who are rewarded for saving lives.

Doing the wrong thing should not be rewarded. The company should be forced out of business.


You don't seem to get it, sir and/or madam. Being right and being morally despicable are not mutually exclusive states. Sometimes one must choose between being being right and being moral. Right is not always moral and moral is not always right. The kid chose to be moral. According to the rules in place, his decision was wrong. The company chose to be right. The fact that the right choice was immoral does not make it wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 524 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report