Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Hallandale Beach, speed limits  
•       •       •

16001 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 3:50 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2012-07-05 08:51:09 AM  
frenchcheesemuseum: Especially if you are in the business of saving lives. I agree.

Except that things such as jurisdiction and territorial boundaries are rather important in real life, and self-dispatching is a practice that is frowned upon and often prohibited by State law.
 
2012-07-05 08:52:02 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: YouFarkingIdiot: When money goes somewhere (government, charity, whatever), then it is in the best interests of that recipient to have more lawsuits, more ridiculous verdicts, etc.

Yep, when the recipient is an individual that is exactly why people bring frivolous lawsuits and tort reform is needed. Which is why I would rather pay down the federal debt (or give it to charity) than encourage frivolous lawsuits.


So instead of addressing the issue, you'd rather just move the shells around so that an entity greater than an individual (whether the government or charity) would be able to reap the benefits and corrupt the system even more for that purpose.
 
2012-07-05 08:52:22 AM  

Ker_Thwap: By leaving his post he put the public at risk. The rule abiding public who chose to swim on a stretch of beach that was lifeguard monitored. To save some fool who didn't respect the ocean and chose to swim nearly half a mile away from a monitored section of the beach


And if a rip current should pull you outside the monitored zone whilst you drown, I guess you're just screwed, eh?
 
2012-07-05 08:52:32 AM  

Ker_Thwap: The lifeguard had a duty to the company. The company had a duty to to the people on the stretch of beach they're assigned to patrol. End of story.

By leaving his post he put the public at risk. The rule abiding public who chose to swim on a stretch of beach that was lifeguard monitored. To save some fool who didn't respect the ocean and chose to swim nearly half a mile away from a monitored section of the beach.

The only one who would be responsible for the death would be the person entering the ocean. Too many people are quick to take idiot risks and then feel entitled that others should risk their lives to take care of them.


he wouldn't have DIED
i can say that with 1001% accuracy
 
2012-07-05 08:52:59 AM  

jtown: ...and morally despicable.


I can't stop reading that in a Bugs Bunny voice.
 
2012-07-05 08:54:28 AM  
Privatize cops to only paid homes/businesses privatize the ems and fire dept to only the insured.


burn it all down
 
2012-07-05 08:56:08 AM  

Ker_Thwap: The lifeguard had a duty to the company. The company had a duty to to the people on the stretch of beach they're assigned to patrol. End of story.

By leaving his post he put the public at risk. The rule abiding public who chose to swim on a stretch of beach that was lifeguard monitored. To save some fool who didn't respect the ocean and chose to swim nearly half a mile away from a monitored section of the beach.

The only one who would be responsible for the death would be the person entering the ocean. Too many people are quick to take idiot risks and then feel entitled that others should risk their lives to take care of them


NO HE DIDN"T. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, AT NO TIME WERE ANY ADDITIONAL LIVES PUT AT RISK BECAUSE HIS ZONE WAS COVERED DOWN ON JUST LIKE IF HE WAS MAKING A SAVE IN HIS OWN ZONE.

Do none of you understand how this works.

1. Lifeguard 1 determines a save needs to be made
2. Lifeguard 2 covers down on zone
3. Lifeguard 1 makes attempt

Whether or not the save was within the zone doesn't make the beach any less safe. Swimming at the beach, even with lifeguards, is always swim at your own risk.
 
2012-07-05 08:56:16 AM  

Hobodeluxe: if there's 1/1000th of a chance your boss might lose a little money


Or you personally.

Remind me...you're a ball washing bastard aren't you?
 
2012-07-05 08:57:42 AM  

december: Hobodeluxe: it's all about the owner of the lifeguard company getting paid for that extra area. to him that's egregious that someone in that free zone got saved and he doesn't make money for that zone.

pretty much this.

it's sounding like the company is firing him for doing personal business on company time. that's f



No its all about the owners of the company guaranteeing safety for kids that were left unprotected and placed at risk by the guy running nearly a quarter mile away from the people he was responsible for.
 
2012-07-05 08:57:44 AM  
So, everyone saying that the company did the right thing, is this the kind of world you want to live in? The kind of world where people will stand and actually watch someone die a preventable death because 'Policy'. Because that's where this kind of behaviour will lead too. Punish everyone for helping and eventually enough people will stop helping that people will needlessly die.

The sad truth is that we can not save everyone. A lifeguard could be at a beach and see 2 people, in his designated area, get pulled underwater by a rip tide or something and then what? He can probably only save one. Hypothetical situations are great but ultimately the best a lifeguard can do is try and save the person in immediate danger. If someone else then gets into difficulties whilst he is off there is nothing he can do.

And just to illustrate a point, here's an article from the UK where the authorties didn't act until it was too late:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104935/Fire-chief-told-polic e man-leave-drowning-man-3ft-deep-lake-half-boot-deep.html

I know it's the dailyfail, and that they have hyped things up a little but it all boils down to people refusing to act because of 'policy'. And perhaps they might not have been able to save the guy even if they did jump in. But what the hell kind of world is it where you don't at least try and save another human being instead of standing there.
 
2012-07-05 09:00:06 AM  

OhioKnight: No its all about the owners of the company guaranteeing safety for kids that were left unprotected and placed at risk by the guy running nearly a quarter mile away from the people he was responsible for.


NO ONE WAS LEFT UNPROTECTED.
 
2012-07-05 09:00:34 AM  

OhioKnight: its all about the owners of the company guaranteeing safety for kids that were left unprotected and placed at risk by the guy running nearly a quarter mile away from the people he was responsible for.


read the thread. we're discussing this actual case and not the hypothetical one you're talking about.
 
2012-07-05 09:01:03 AM  

cman: Who is running this company?


Republicans, of course.

\guy would have gotten a medal if he'd saved a drowning fetus "outside his zone"
 
2012-07-05 09:01:54 AM  
Ha, morning local news is having a field day with this.
 
2012-07-05 09:02:03 AM  

YouFarkingIdiot: jrw8778: 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?

1) There are plenty of examples of people suing good samaritans
2) It's not just saving that person's life, it's the risk of getting sued by someone in the contracted property
3) If you would open your eyes, you'd see that it's not hogwash. But the sun...it blinds you!
4) I'm not advocating for that at all. Maybe that's the obvious conclusion for someone who has no ability to think. But other people would realize that I'd advocate changing the laws and the litigation climate in order to remove the barriers to doing the right thing.


So...no examples? I'm just saying...you know, I'm a trial lawyer. I'm familiar with the usual arguments put forth by idiot-children conservatives. I'm not familiar with ANY cases of a good Samaritan being sued just for saving someone's life. I find the very idea ludicrous. Now, if a good Samaritan saves someone, and then somehow harms them after they've been saved through carelessness, yeah, they can be sued...theoretically. Even that, however, is so rare (I'm not familiar with any examples), that it should never stop someone from rendering aid.

Based on what you're telling me, can I deduce you would NOT have helped in this situation? That's not very "mavericky", actually it sounds like you are a coward.
 
2012-07-05 09:02:38 AM  
All I can say in response is ... personal responsibility. Some people will understand it, and some people won't.
 
2012-07-05 09:05:31 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: 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.


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


So FlyingLizardOfDoom's argument is not only unsound, it's also factually incorrect as there were other lifeguards on duty who stayed in the designated area.
 
2012-07-05 09:05:32 AM  

dlp211: OhioKnight: No its all about the owners of the company guaranteeing safety for kids that were left unprotected and placed at risk by the guy running nearly a quarter mile away from the people he was responsible for.

NO ONE WAS LEFT UNPROTECTED.


You're never going to get that boulder to stay on the top of the hill, Sisyphus... : )
 
2012-07-05 09:07:14 AM  

Ker_Thwap: All I can say in response is ... personal responsibility. Some people will understand it, and some people won't.


Some people will understand how to be decent human beings instinctively, and some people will always look to their corporate rulebook before figuring out how to act. Guess which ones vote Republican.
 
DYI
2012-07-05 09:10:03 AM  

Unemployedingreenland: 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.


This isn't an example of what happened though. If I am babysitting your kids and I see someone drowning, I am going to ask someone I trust (the fired lifeguard asked his well trained co-workers to keep an eye on his station while he helped rescue the drowning man) to watch the kids while I go help the person. Your kids are being watched and safe. They weren't left alone to fend for themselves.

It's not like he just left the beach with no one watching it at all.

Granted, you may never let me watch your kids again, but I would feel better about helping someone that needed it. And you should understand that someone WAS watching your kids while I was doing what my human nature would compel me to do. The company should not have fired the guy, Given him a reprimand for leaving his station? Maybe. Or maybe they should commend the guy for taking the initiative to help someone in need and reap the rewards for the good publicity it would bring.

It's a sad state when doing the right thing gets you fired. But then, they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
2012-07-05 09:10:14 AM  
Of course people were left unprotected. Typing it in all caps doesn't validate your point dlp211.

Let's do some second grade math. If you have 10 lifeguards on a beach and 1 leaves, what percent of lifeguards are left on the beach?
 
2012-07-05 09:11:19 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.


In one of the first articles about this story, it was explained that there were other life guards from his company on duty, and being so, there was plenty of coverage in his zone. His "clients" were never in danger of being unsupervised.
 
2012-07-05 09:11:24 AM  

ciberido: FlyingLizardOfDoom: 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.

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

So FlyingLizardOfDoom's argument is not only unsound, it's also factually incorrect as there were other lifeguards on duty who stayed in the designated area.


Nothing in the story or the comments negates the soundness of my argument, they just make it moot.
 
2012-07-05 09:11:57 AM  

LordJiro: dopekitty74: FlyingLizardOfDoom: You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.

And THIS is why capitalism is inherently evil.

/commie

'Amoral' and 'evil' aren't the same things.


Yes, actually, they are.
 
2012-07-05 09:12:57 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

we have created.

Not to quibble with your central message, but to emphasize that we weren't plopped down into a pre-existing society like this; we made it this way, and we tolerate and therefore sustain this kind of mentality with our everyday actions.
 
2012-07-05 09:14:41 AM  
ZipSplat - 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.


THIS

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. (Only in extreme circumstances where they were completely negligent - like being drunk, etc. at the time)

AND THIS

I always loves these threads, where people with absolutely no training, or understanding of the law rush in to immediately proclaim how someone can be sued (successfully) for something, when nothing in the law would allow for a recovery under those circumstances. It's like they've read every single email forward of phony cases, which is pushed out there by their crazy tea-partying uncle, and believed everything they read.
 
2012-07-05 09:15:07 AM  

buckler: Confabulat:
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.


Yep. Now he'll learn to do the bare minimum and not anything more.
 
2012-07-05 09:15:46 AM  

CheekyMonkey: LordJiro: dopekitty74: FlyingLizardOfDoom: You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.

And THIS is why capitalism is inherently evil.

/commie

'Amoral' and 'evil' aren't the same things.

Yes, actually, they are.


Actually, they aren't.
 
2012-07-05 09:17:36 AM  
www.the-leaping-lamp.com

Stephen King approves of the unraveling of your society, and takes notes.

;-)
 
2012-07-05 09:18:27 AM  
Ah, more of the story comes out. It's still douchbaggery on the part of the company, but the lifeguard didn't pull anyone from the water.

This is from the BBC.

Mr Lopez, four months in the job, ran some distance to help the swimmer who had already been pulled out of the water by other beachgoers.
 
2012-07-05 09:20:49 AM  
Sounds like it might be time to fire that company.

I'm sure there's plenty of other companies out there who would love that contract and are less callous about human life.
 
2012-07-05 09:22:35 AM  

debug: 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.


All of that goes the fark out of the window with prejudice when a life is on the line.
 
2012-07-05 09:22:50 AM  

jrw8778: YouFarkingIdiot: jrw8778: 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?

1) There are plenty of examples of people suing good samaritans
2) It's not just saving that person's life, it's the risk of getting sued by someone in the contracted property
3) If you would open your eyes, you'd see that it's not hogwash. But the sun...it blinds you!
4) I'm not advocating for that at all. Maybe that's the obvious conclusion for someone who has no ability to think. But other people would realize that I'd advocate changing the laws and the litigation climate in order to remove the barriers to doing the right thing.

So...no examples? I'm just saying...you know, I'm a trial lawyer. I'm familiar with the usual arguments put forth by idiot-children conservatives. I'm not familiar with ANY cases of a good Samaritan being sued just for saving someone's life. I find the very idea ludicrous. Now, if a good Samaritan saves someone, and then somehow harms them after they've been saved through carelessness, yeah, they can be sued...theoretically. Even that, however, is so rare (I'm not familiar with any examples), that it should never stop someone from rendering aid.

Based on what you're telling me, can I deduce you would NOT have helped in this situation? That's not very "mavericky", actually it sounds like you are a coward.


Based on what you're telling me, I can deduce that your IQ is lower than your age.

And if you really are a trial lawyer, then your clients are suckers.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1#.T_WUZXkepZg

And yes I would have helped in the situation. But I understand why companies do not want to based on our litigious society.

Troll on!
 
2012-07-05 09:23:28 AM  

Unemployedingreenland: 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.


Maybe if you had read the previous article on the topic, there might be a little more doubt.

"Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue and were on the phone with 911 operators."
 
2012-07-05 09:23:39 AM  
What is right and what is legal are not always the same thing. In fact, sometimes, doing what is right requires breaking the law. It's a tough lesson to learn, but he should feel proud he did what is right.
 
2012-07-05 09:23:43 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: CheekyMonkey: LordJiro: dopekitty74: FlyingLizardOfDoom: You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.

And THIS is why capitalism is inherently evil.

/commie

'Amoral' and 'evil' aren't the same things.

Yes, actually, they are.

Actually, they aren't.


Feel free to provide a definition of 'evil' which excludes amorality. Difficulty: No religious/supernatural bullshiat allowed.
 
2012-07-05 09:23:55 AM  

Unemployedingreenland: 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.


I'm pretty sure that the first link in your chain of fail is hiring a babysitter to take your kids to an unprotected beach.
 
2012-07-05 09:24:06 AM  

CheekyMonkey: cman: Who is running this company?

Republicans, of course.

\guy would have gotten a medal if he'd saved a drowning fetus "outside his zone"


Saving a non-fetus outside his zone is SOCIALISM

DROWNING MAN = SLAVE OWNER; RESORT COMPANY = ATTRACTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL
 
2012-07-05 09:25:01 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.


The public is the companys customers, The company is paid to safeguard the publics life,
Hence his job was to try to save lives of the public.
I hope this company looses its contract.. Well deserved if they do.
 
2012-07-05 09:25:05 AM  

Virulency: 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...


Really? You don't think you have jurisdictional disputes with government agencies?

You think a city Fire Department is going to respond to a fire 2 miles away but is outside their responsibility or are they going to leave it t the county fire department 10 miles away? You would be surprised (or maybe not) bureaucracy involved when one agency/department/service wants to use or borrow the resources/facilities/bases of another. Government bureaucrats can be very petty when it comes to protecting their own little fiefdoms and government employees are at least as quick as any private sector union thug to let you know when something is "not their job."


This whole thing has the stench of lawyer all over it. My guess that somehow the company is libel if they leave the area they are contracted to provide service for uncovered.
 
2012-07-05 09:25:10 AM  
I'm just imagining the scenario of him not going in to rescue him, and letting the person die.

"Why did you just let them die?"
"I was following orders."
 
2012-07-05 09:25:28 AM  

The sound of one hand clapping: So, everyone saying that the company did the right thing, is this the kind of world you want to live in? The kind of world where people will stand and actually watch someone die a preventable death because 'Policy'. Because that's where this kind of behaviour will lead too. Punish everyone for helping and eventually enough people will stop helping that people will needlessly die.

The sad truth is that we can not save everyone. A lifeguard could be at a beach and see 2 people, in his designated area, get pulled underwater by a rip tide or something and then what? He can probably only save one. Hypothetical situations are great but ultimately the best a lifeguard can do is try and save the person in immediate danger. If someone else then gets into difficulties whilst he is off there is nothing he can do.

And just to illustrate a point, here's an article from the UK where the authorties didn't act until it was too late:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104935/Fire-chief-told-polic e man-leave-drowning-man-3ft-deep-lake-half-boot-deep.html

I know it's the dailyfail, and that they have hyped things up a little but it all boils down to people refusing to act because of 'policy'. And perhaps they might not have been able to save the guy even if they did jump in. But what the hell kind of world is it where you don't at least try and save another human being instead of standing there.


Depends on the definition of "right". Is it the moral thing to do? No. Is it the best course of action for a company that could be sued out of business. Possibly.

I don't want to live in this kind of world. I'd like to get rid of our litigious society and the blood sucking trial lawyers that support it :)
 
2012-07-05 09:27:30 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.


I'm an emergency medical responder (formerly known as "first responder" in USDOT-certification lingo). My employers require the certification, and paid for my training. My training says that I have a moral obligation to render aid whenever I see someone in need. My employers say sure, that's true, if I'm at work.

So basically if someone I'm working with feels dizzy on their fancy Herman Miller chair at work, I can give them oxygen, but if some random crashes along the 50 miles of winding mountain roads I drive to get to the work site, my bosses aren't very enthusiastic about me pulling over while on the clock and driving one of their trucks.

Employers are like that.
 
2012-07-05 09:27:56 AM  
DYI:

You're making a lot of assumptions about the safety of the people that the lifeguard left on the beach. If his presence in the area wasn't necessary then the company would only have 4 lifeguards in the protected zone instead of 5. He was so far away that he didn't even make it to the drowning man in time. Now, what if it were a rip current that ended up pulling someone from his zone under? Would he make it back in time? How crowded is the beach? How far away are the other lifeguards? Can they even see his entire zone? We don't know any of this. At most, they should have reprimanded him and left it at that. To those talking about paying him a bonus for PR purposes...who the hell is looking for a lifeguard company?
 
2012-07-05 09:28:02 AM  

CheekyMonkey: FlyingLizardOfDoom: CheekyMonkey: LordJiro: dopekitty74: FlyingLizardOfDoom: You need to understand that business ethics are not moral, they are financial.

And THIS is why capitalism is inherently evil.

/commie

'Amoral' and 'evil' aren't the same things.

Yes, actually, they are.

Actually, they aren't.

Feel free to provide a definition of 'evil' which excludes amorality. Difficulty: No religious/supernatural bullshiat allowed.


You do know the difference between amoral and immoral, right?
 
2012-07-05 09:29:45 AM  

Virulency: 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...


A few years a go there was an article where a town fired a firefighter who repeated acted as an EMT even though it was against policy, there reasoning was that even though he was trained as an EMT there insurance did not cover it. Towns wills often let a house burn down if it is beyond there territory in an unincorporated area.

When you are in an insanely litigious society then things like this happen. Towns and Businesses are under the same threat of lawsuits and they respond in similar manners.
 
2012-07-05 09:29:58 AM  
I read the article on the follow up but it does not state that if the man who was in trouble was actually on the beach where the company was contracted to patrol and if the man drowning was swept out and ended up in the unpatrolled area or if this person was from the condo's that were located in the unprotected area?

But regardless, firing someone over having compassion towards another human life that is in danger is just asinine. If the company wanted to set an example a suspension without pay would have be better. The point would have come across clearly, the company would have shown it was being proactive in reprimanded their employee in the event a lawsuit would have arose and it would not have turned in to a huge media storm like it is now.

There should be a "Good Samaritan" law passed which states that anyone that is trying to give aid to another person can not be sued if there was an incidental negligence. People voice out how could someone just walk by someone in need when people who do try and help, like this life guard, gets shafted in the end. People are so lawsuit happy in this day and age. If someone other than a fireman runs into a burning building, picks up and unconscious person to save them from a horrible death, runs out with the victim but trips in the process and that person falls to the ground and breaks the victims arm, but was saved, guess what....the "hero" is gong to face a possible lawsuit.
 
2012-07-05 09:30:04 AM  

Ker_Thwap: Of course people were left unprotected. Typing it in all caps doesn't validate your point dlp211.

Let's do some second grade math. If you have 10 lifeguards on a beach and 1 leaves, what percent of lifeguards are left on the beach?


Well, that explains your point of view. You only got to the second grade.
 
2012-07-05 09:30:53 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.


Except in the lifeguard case, he contacted his coworkers to coordinate coverage before he left his zone of corporate obedience.
 
2012-07-05 09:32:10 AM  

hasty ambush: Virulency: 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...

Really? You don't think you have jurisdictional disputes with government agencies?

You think a city Fire Department is going to respond to a fire 2 miles away but is outside their responsibility or are they going to leave it t the county fire department 10 miles away? You would be surprised (or maybe not) bureaucracy involved when one agency/department/service wants to use or borrow the resources/facilities/bases of another. Government bureaucrats can be very petty when it comes to protecting their own little fiefdoms and government employees are at least as quick as any private sector union thug to let you know when something is "not their job."


This whole thing has the stench of lawyer all over it. My guess that somehow the company is libel if they leave the area they are contracted to provide service for uncovered.


My neighbors house burned to the ground about two years ago. It was a really REALLY bad fire, where my town's FD responded, but they called in help from three other towns so the fire didn't spread to MY house and other houses... and that help came lickety-split. Towns do have agreements with other towns for mutual aid. When those towns responded to our fire, other towns step-in to cover the responding towns.

I'm one of those freaky people with a scanner, and I hear calls for mutual aid all the time for fire and police.

I agree, though, that this does have the stench of lawyer all over it.
 
Displayed 50 of 524 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report