Mix it up a bit - the lifeguard has training in CPR (I believe it's a requirement), and someone comes running from a store across from the beach screaming "help, help - my husband is having a heart attack and isn't breathing!" The lifeguard looks around and sees no one else responding, so he takes off to help and actually does save a life. Now, he's off the beach for 15 minutes, leaving the area unattended and completely out of his sight. Fire him?

If not, what if he was gone for an hour while rendering aid off the beach? Two hours? Would it matter if the surf was calm or rough, if the beach was populated with little kids?

The company should have handled this better, but there's little doubt this guy left his post, albeit for extremely noble reasons, and therefore his primary responsibilities, unattended. Anything could have happened in his part of the beach, and drowning can happen very, very quickly.

What if I hire a sitter to watch my kids at a beach with no lifeguard. I specifically hire someone with lifeguarding skills. While at the beach, the sitter notices someone in distress, looks around and sees no one in sight rushing to help, so he jumps into the water and pulls the guy out and saves his life. The whole thing takes only 5 minutes, but during that time, some pedo grabs my kid and takes off. Does the sitter get a pass because he was doing something extremely noble? If you don't like that example, assume my kid drowns instead.

To believe that this guy gets a pass on abandoning his post because his reasons were noble is akin to excusing the sitter. Sorry, but not everyone in this situation is equal - in the sitter example, my kids better take absolute precedence. Why is the guy who "swam at his own risk" treated the same as the people who swam at a lifeguarded beach? If I (or my family) go to a lifeguarded beach, I want that lifeguard's attention focused on that beach, not on some general duty to save lives in the general vicinity.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: mikdeetx: Something from the original article has gotten lost in subsequent posts. The lifeguard had two other lifeguards covering his post while he helped. There was no threat to the public in the watch zone.

Unlike his boss, he covered his ass.

So he forced his company to pay for two extra employees to cover his post? Death is too kind for this kind of reckless employee taking matters into his own hands without a suit approving...

who the hell DIES at the farking beach.
it's a place like any other. have people call 911 if there's problems.

you don't have a lifeguard on the farking Dance Floor??

I want to just note, when Republicans and conservatives, tea party folk and Objectivists try to apply their philosophy, this type of argument is your downfall. 50 years ago this kid would have received a medal and a ribbon and a $50 treasury bond or some such shiat. Today his employer fires him and states that he should have been doing his job only within the required parameters.

This wasn't a salesman that went out of his territory. This was a kid who saved somebody's life. How farking stupid can you asshats be?

Fausts Fist: Holy batshiat -

I've read the first fifty comments, skimmed the rest and the amount of people who clearly have no idea how businesses are run is staggering. Sure the lifeguard did the right thing in saving this mans life but he did violate his - i assume - contractual duties to his employer. If it is usual business practice in this sector and or kind of business to fire an employee for this kind of trangression no amount of 'but he did the morally right thing' cries by idealistic armchair crusaders will change anything.
If this is not the case, and I certainly have only the faintest idea about how the law is on your side of the pond and he files&wins an unlawful termination suit against the lifeguard service, then, by all means get angry at them.

Until then - just remember that a business is run for profits not morality.
And if that seems 'wrong' I'd recommend either opening a business of your own or growing up.

Bad PR is also bad for business. Firing a guy who just saved someone's life is pretty bad PR. I think everyone here realizes why the business did what they did. I think it is pretty clear though that they could easily have handled it better. Commend him for his bravery, but pull him into the office, explain again why they have their rules about staying within the boundary, tell him that was strike 1, and next time, call the police.

jrw8778: I want to just note, when Republicans and conservatives, tea party folk and Objectivists try to apply their philosophy, this type of argument is your downfall. 50 years ago this kid would have received a medal and a ribbon and a $50 treasury bond or some such shiat. Today his employer fires him and states that he should have been doing his job only within the required parameters.

This wasn't a salesman that went out of his territory. This was a kid who saved somebody's life. How farking stupid can you asshats be?

Your argument is what happens when someone has an inability to see the whole picture. See my previous comment to see how poor your response is.

I have to admit, certain aspects of the "immoral to not help" argument piques some curiosity in me. I don't necessarily disagree in a purely idealistic sense. But the pragmatist in me wonders what are the practical limits of the alleged moral responsibility for everyone else's well being.

He was 1500 (or more) feet away. Which brings me to wonder, how far away must one be before they are no longer morally responsible for everyone else's actions and well being? Is it 3000 feet? One mile? Is it a circular radius around my person?

Suppose I see something on TV happening several states away from where I am. Am I morally obligated to abandon my job duties in my state to drive a thousand miles to help? If you answer no, then what distance was the cutoff point?

And how many days can I completely abandon my job duties without notice back home before it becomes reasonable to fire me? More than a month?

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

1,500 feet is 457 meters, he was a good distance outside of his zone. That's about the height of the Sears tower (1,451)

[upload.wikimedia.org image 466x599]

Willis Tower. Since this is all about corporatey by-the-books-ishness.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.

Potentially losing the contract over their overreaction and the subsequent publicity is a horrible financial mistake.

The problem is a matter of policy failure. While a company like Jeff Ellis must create very specific rules and policies, and enforce them strictly, they also must be able to adapt to situations they couldn't forsee.

In this instance, the policy of not leaving your designated area while on-duty conflicts with basic human compassion of assisting those in peril. Because they have no policy to handle assisting those in peril OUTSIDE their designated area.

The appropriate solution to this is to address the hole in the policy.

Unemployedingreenland: Mix it up a bit -

Interesting parallels in thought.

Companies named after their owners (or using their owners' initials) are almost always extremely douchnozzley companies..

theknuckler_33: Fausts Fist: Holy batshiat -

I've read the first fifty comments, skimmed the rest and the amount of people who clearly have no idea how businesses are run is staggering. Sure the lifeguard did the right thing in saving this mans life but he did violate his - i assume - contractual duties to his employer. If it is usual business practice in this sector and or kind of business to fire an employee for this kind of trangression no amount of 'but he did the morally right thing' cries by idealistic armchair crusaders will change anything.
If this is not the case, and I certainly have only the faintest idea about how the law is on your side of the pond and he files&wins an unlawful termination suit against the lifeguard service, then, by all means get angry at them.

Until then - just remember that a business is run for profits not morality.
And if that seems 'wrong' I'd recommend either opening a business of your own or growing up.

Bad PR is also bad for business. Firing a guy who just saved someone's life is pretty bad PR. I think everyone here realizes why the business did what they did. I think it is pretty clear though that they could easily have handled it better. Commend him for his bravery, but pull him into the office, explain again why they have their rules about staying within the boundary, tell him that was strike 1, and next time, call the police.

What is wrong with you people? We're not talking about engaging in a a quick game of "doctor" behind the beach house with a hot chick, we're talking about someone's life. In essence you have to tell this guy: "Look, if someone is in trouble outside the designated lines, you have to watch him die." That's not good business, nor is it good ethics or morals. It's reprehensible on every level imaginable. I own my own business, if my employee was out performing a task for me, and came upon a accident etc. and rendered help to the injured, I'd probably give him or her a raise. If money means more than human life you are an evil person, period. Don't try to justify it, just acknowledge you're an evil fark and get on with your miserable existence.

Compelled to help, Lopez said he ran a considerable distance, arriving to find that several witnesses had pulled the man, a 21-year-old from Estonia, out of the ocean. Lopez and an off-duty nurse tended to the victim until paramedics arrived. The victim was reported in good condition Wednesday at Aventura Hospital.

Hmm, just saw this. Doesn't really sound like he saved the guys life. I still say he did the right thing by responding and getting fired is farked up. But it just doesn't sound like he saved the guys life.

City spokesman Peter Dobens said the agreement for the protected areas of the beach calls for four lifeguards and one supervisor to be on duty simultaneously, per shift.

...

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.

Wait, so one guy left and there were 3 others and a supervisor there and you are worried about service being 'disrupted'?

This story is all kinds of farked up.

Sadly, I'm not surprised. We must cover the corpoate assets...

I don't know about Florida, but Colorado has a Good Samaritan law. Basically, they couldn't be sued for tyring to help.

ThrobblefootSpectre:

Here's a serious suggestion for tort reform. (And not the republican argument that "You can't sue companies duurrr!").

Yes, keep punitive damages at a magnitude that will hurt the defendant corporation. But neither the plaintiff nor his/her attorneys get any of that money, not a penny. It goes to the federal treasury to help pay down the national debt. Note, the plaintiff still gets reasonable medical damages, emotional damages, etc, just not punitive damages which is where the international headline inducing sums come from.


So easy to make some BS up about the "other side", DURRRRRR!

I love how the simplistic mind works. The government, who has no limits on what it will take from the people and waste, should be the recipient of this money. And of course this corrupt institution would never continue to write laws to take advantage of this and get more money, right? Oh, and apparently lawyers are going to go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (thanks government policies for unaffordable education!) only to work on cases for free! DUUUUURRRRRR!

Tat'dGreaser: I am laughing my ass at the people who think state and federal government run like efficient clocks that never screw up.

Nice straw man.

Fausts Fist: Holy batshiat -

I've read the first fifty comments, skimmed the rest and the amount of people who clearly have no idea how businesses are run is staggering. Sure the lifeguard did the right thing in saving this mans life but he did violate his - i assume - contractual duties to his employer. If it is usual business practice in this sector and or kind of business to fire an employee for this kind of trangression no amount of 'but he did the morally right thing' cries by idealistic armchair crusaders will change anything.
If this is not the case, and I certainly have only the faintest idea about how the law is on your side of the pond and he files&wins an unlawful termination suit against the lifeguard service, then, by all means get angry at them.

Until then - just remember that a business is run for profits not morality.
And if that seems 'wrong' I'd recommend either opening a business of your own or growing up.

Jesus Christ, Ayn Rand. Plenty of us realize that's how businesses are run and we are only expressing displeasure that time after time, morality and ethics take a backseat to profits. I realize businesses are outta make a profit, but if that means they are going to be at odds with morality whenever it threatens the bottom line, and that they are practically praised by people when they do it, it speaks very poorly about our society. I'm not saying every business needs to be purely altruistic, just not blind and/or blatantly antithetical to simple shiat like the value of life.

jrw8778: theknuckler_33: Fausts Fist: Holy batshiat -

I've read the first fifty comments, skimmed the rest and the amount of people who clearly have no idea how businesses are run is staggering. Sure the lifeguard did the right thing in saving this mans life but he did violate his - i assume - contractual duties to his employer. If it is usual business practice in this sector and or kind of business to fire an employee for this kind of trangression no amount of 'but he did the morally right thing' cries by idealistic armchair crusaders will change anything.
If this is not the case, and I certainly have only the faintest idea about how the law is on your side of the pond and he files&wins an unlawful termination suit against the lifeguard service, then, by all means get angry at them.

Until then - just remember that a business is run for profits not morality.
And if that seems 'wrong' I'd recommend either opening a business of your own or growing up.

Bad PR is also bad for business. Firing a guy who just saved someone's life is pretty bad PR. I think everyone here realizes why the business did what they did. I think it is pretty clear though that they could easily have handled it better. Commend him for his bravery, but pull him into the office, explain again why they have their rules about staying within the boundary, tell him that was strike 1, and next time, call the police.

What is wrong with you people?

You misinterpreted me. I was just suggesting that was another course of action the company might have taken to avoid bad PR, not that I am in agreement with their policies overall.

YouFarkingIdiot: I love how the simplistic mind works

You must, because you demonstrate it so well.

/see where I already addressed the conflict of interest objection.

kevinatilusa: 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.

My wife's a Business Major, she says that a lot of curriculum got changed in 2009/2010 due to the 2008 crash. Apparently they are migrating to teaching actual ethics rather than just whatever makes the most money, and long term strategies over short term profits. But of course, that's just what they are teaching in school, that doesn't mean the real life is much better, and it will take a long time for the old ways to die off.

In addition to not totally farking up the PR, a competent business owner would have used this incident to clearly illustrate a greater need for their services and get the contract expanded to include additional areas.

randomjsa: Lack of tort reform claims another victim.

Don't be silly. I don't know of any proposed "tort reform" short of the complete elimination of the right to bring a civil lawsuit that would have protected the company from the legal liability: If someone drowned in their zone, they are responsible. By leaving their zone, the lifeguard really did put the company at risk. It was the right thing to do, but the legal risk would not go away by any proposed law.

Also: Most companies are willing to fire people for violation of their rules even if it does not bring a legal liability.

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.

The company is both right and wrong. Very good chance they could be sued for what they did driving the company out of business. Blame our fark'd up legal system.

If people would actually read the original article they'd know that there's a team of 3 lifeguards and a supervisor on duty at the guarded beach. Even the supervisor who fired him (Susan Ellis- the wife of one of the company's owners?) said that at no time was there any danger to the public. So the whole "coulda woulda shoulda" argument about "somebody *might* have drowned while he was 1500 feet away helping someone else is refuted by the company themselves.

Even if that argument had any merit, by that logic their lifeguards should never save anybody, because person B *might* cramp up and drown while the lifeguards are busy saving person A. This is what happens when a company run by cowards puts fear of possible, hypothetical litigation above doing the damn job the city hired them for: providing lifeguards and saving lives.

Oh Nice -- Right now the company's getting all the PR there going to need on the Today show.

Apparantly this company is the big cheese in private lifesaving aquatics risks management solutions.

http://www.aquaticsintl.com/2005/feb/0502_ellis.html

Tat'dGreaser: theknuckler_33: Nice straw man.

Nice diversionary tactic

Ooh, burn. You're right, That post of yours that I quoted was thoughtful debate commentary. How silly of me.

buckler: 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.

You should provide some of your own evidence when you make assertions.

vinniethepoo: If people would actually read the original article they'd know that there's a team of 3 lifeguards and a supervisor on duty at the guarded beach. Even the supervisor who fired him (Susan Ellis- the wife of one of the company's owners?) said that at no time was there any danger to the public. So the whole "coulda woulda shoulda" argument about "somebody *might* have drowned while he was 1500 feet away helping someone else is refuted by the company themselves.

Even if that argument had any merit, by that logic their lifeguards should never save anybody, because person B *might* cramp up and drown while the lifeguards are busy saving person A. This is what happens when a company run by cowards puts fear of possible, hypothetical litigation above doing the damn job the city hired them for: providing lifeguards and saving lives.

The bottom line here is that he acted on his own and not according to company policy.

Jim_Callahan: 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.

But the employee believes he did the correct thing. He didn't understand why he shouldn't have operated outside the contracted area.

cman: Who is running this company?

Douche, Douche, and Cumstain, LLC

Something tells me the lifeguard is going to be just fine.

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.

The problem is, in our society, "no good deed goes unpunished." There is so much [successful] litigation because of rules-worship that the rules themselves have become more important than the situations they were created to describe.Society, as a whole, has chosen what's "fair" over what's "right." The two, when applied strictly, are effectively as incompatible as Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Condition. To condemn the company is to focus on the symptom, not the cause, and is counterproductive, since you (society) have expressly said how you want entities to behave - which is not how you're reacting to said stated behavior.

If you have the training and ability to save someone, and you're aware someone is in distress and you fail to act and as a result that someone dies, is that not the definition of 'depraved indifference'?

buckler: 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.

You are confusing Burglary and Robbery. Burglary is breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony. Robbery is theft from the person or presence of another. Calling 911 will not prevent a Robbery.

Look, the director has suspected for some months now that his wife and perhaps his daughter have been banging that lifeguard. He's got an excuse to fire him and he's taking it.

is this guy running PR for the company?

YouFarkingIdiot: jrw8778: I want to just note, when Republicans and conservatives, tea party folk and Objectivists try to apply their philosophy, this type of argument is your downfall. 50 years ago this kid would have received a medal and a ribbon and a $50 treasury bond or some such shiat. Today his employer fires him and states that he should have been doing his job only within the required parameters.

This wasn't a salesman that went out of his territory. This was a kid who saved somebody's life. How farking stupid can you asshats be?

Your argument is what happens when someone has an inability to see the whole picture. See my previous comment to see how poor your response is.

Find a single example of a lifeguard service being sued because their lifeguard saved someone's life. Just one will do. The apocrapha of trial lawyers making it impossible for people to do anything is total hogwash and has been since conservative propaganda first touted it. How does it feel to know that you are advocating for someone to die in the pursuit of money? That doesn't bother you at all?

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.

Indeed. He can get another job. I'm pretty sure he, like most non-Captains of Industry, would have a hard time living with himself if he'd just sat on his ass and watched someone drown.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean that doing it is right.