Skip to comments.Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Out After Admitting They'd Save Man Outside Zone
Posted on 07/04/2012 3:58:33 PM PDT by dayglored
Six Florida lifeguards have lost their jobs for backing a coworker's decision to save a man struggling in the surf but outside their jurisdiction.
Tomas Lopez , 21, was fired Monday for vacating his lifeguarding zone to save a man drowning in unprotected waters 1,500 feet south of his post on Hallandale Beach, Fla.
"I knew I broke the rules," said Lopez, who ran past the buoy marking the boundary of his patrol zone to help the man. "I told the manager, I'm fired aren't I?"
Lopez said he jumped into the water and "I double underhooked him I was worried about the guy and his health. He was blue."
Six of Lopez's coworkers said they would have done the same thing. And now, they've been fired too.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Well our sue happy culture is to blame for this.
I would rather save the life and be fired. Would rather be fired than work for a bunch of penny pinching sh*theels.
Common sense died a slow death at the hands of lawyers.
“Is a contract valid or morally defensible, that requires an individual to watch another human being suffer and die, when they are trained to save them? “
No. There are some things you can not morally agree to do.
I hope someone out there in need of a lifeguard will hire these excellent employees.
Your points are well taken and for the most part unarguable.
However there is a different viewpoint that is lacking here. In a effort not to get technical, that viewpoint can be summed up as "no harm, no foul."
In mine and other safety critical industries subject to civil crimes, even jail if we screw up . . . If you fired everyone caught making a mistake or wrong critical decision, these particular industries probably would no longer exist if truth be known.
About 20 years ago, common sense approach has started to take root. The concept is . . . If you screw up, but there are no consequences of the particular moment or action . . . the attitude is . . . the mistake did not happen in the sense as we used to view things.
However . . . Responsible individuals are "kinda" (yeah I know) required to report on themselves and even others so that . . . 1. Mainly we and everyone around can learn from the incident and become "better" for it 2. To help determine root cause of incident . . . i.e bad training, lack of supervision, uneven practices, etc etc etc. And the organization becomes stronger and better for it as it identifies practices that can NOT be complied with as in this specific incident.
Any one ask if the company could be sued for NOT responding?
They couldn’t have just received a warning or reprimand? You know, first offence kind of thing.....
Amen. Amen. Amen.
“No greater love.” Lifeguards....heroes....I love them.
Puts all new meaning to the Shakespeare quote from Henry VI, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
I wonder, if the lifeguard had stayed at his post, and the man had drowned, would the lifeguard, or his company, be sued successfully by (say) the man’s family?
But if someone in is sector drowned while he was saving this man, they would have been liable.
Never misunderestimate the “ability” of reporters and media editors to mangle a story.
Ah, good point.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Saving an innocent life is ALWAYS the right and moral thing to do.
I would fire him on the spot. Then I would rehire him on the spot. I would duly note the actions, per regulations, in his file and also include a letter of commendation.
Thank you for the ping!
Please my posts #7 and #18 above. The company was within their rights contractually, so in that sense they did the "right thing". However, I have real trouble with that contract in the first place.
As an employer whose employees read and sign employment contracts, am I expected to ignore those contractual agreements, especially if (as others pointed out) I am liable if someone else gets in trouble in the water my lifeguards are supposed to be guarding?
I think the original contract is morally indefensible.
Stupid rules for rules’ sake trumped common sense and human decency. We must never follow rules that go against human decency. The Nazis conflagration proved that once again, and history is full of instances of heroes and idiots. The lifeguard company is filled with idiots and lacks the courage to be human.
“Right” it might be according to ‘the rules’ but wrong it is before the Great Throne of God. I hope some terrific company snaps these guys up and honors them appropriately; they will get great and honorable workers.
The lawyers be damned.
Now -that- is an interesting perspective! I rather like that -- assuming you can do something about the horrible contractual restrictions so you and the lifeguard aren't faced with the same problem next week or month..
Whenever the lives of the customers or employees is at threat, no business should be able to fire someone for taking action to prevent the loss of life.
To cover for a business that punishes a moral responsibility is nothing more than Business Socialism.
And, if that lifeguard did not act, and the person drowned, the company will be sued...and will lose. No jury is going to rule in favor of a business that prevented life saving action from taking place
I am pro-Business....but no fan of Business Socialism. You never should shirk moral responsibility
Before any budget cuts ever happened....you’d of thought these genius’s would have had some foresight to have a water rescue squad.
Yes...the company providing the life guards would be sued...and for great amounts if there is loss of life
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.