Archive

Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

  • LJ
    O-Trap;1218970 wrote:He wasn't doing his job, as his job was to ensure the safety of the beach-goers in his area. That, he did not do in that moment.

    Again, I'm not saying he didn't do the right thing. I'm just saying I don't completely blame the employer.
    The job of a lifeguard is to protect and serve the swimmers. Just like the job of a police officer is to protect and serve the citizens. It doesn't matter if they are inside some imaginary line or not.
  • Con_Alma
    LJ;1218977 wrote:Do you even read the articles before you post?
    in general, no..which is why my comments were written as a general observation.

    Does that company have a notification process? Did he follow it?
    ...Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue
    I don't think comment that had anything to do with my post.

    The question is did he follow procedure? I don't know.
  • LJ
    Con_Alma;1218981 wrote:in general, no..which is why my comments were written as a general observation.

    Does that company have a notification process? Did he follow it?
    Read the article.
  • se-alum
    Con_Alma;1218981 wrote:in general, no..which is why my comments were written as a general observation.

    Does that company have a notification process? Did he follow it?
    There's obviously a notification process that was followed, being that the other lifeguards knew to watch the area.
  • ts1227
    Steel Valley Football;1218771 wrote:He made a choice.
  • Con_Alma
    se-alum;1218986 wrote:There's obviously a notification process that was followed, being that the other lifeguards knew to watch the area.
    ????

    How is that obvious? Wouldn't a lifeguard raise his flag and cover an are if he saw another guard on a rescue...even if he wasn't notified?
  • Con_Alma
    O.K. I read it. He broke the company's policy.

    Both parties did the right thing.
  • O-Trap
    se-alum;1218976 wrote:It's completely unfair of the company to put an employee in that position. What if he stands there and watches the guy drown? That could completely screw him up for the rest of his life.
    There are a lot of things about people's jobs that could screw them up for life. The company's job isn't to handle that "what-if." It's to create an organized way to ensure the safety of swimmers. This young man did a good thing, but relinquished his responsibility for the safety of others.

    If something had genuinely gone wrong while he was away from his post, and the lifeguards standing in for him aren't able to prevent some horrible injury or even death, whose responsibility is it? It's the responsibility of the person to whom said responsibility was given by the employer. The employer entrusted the lifeguard with the safety of those in a particular area, and he left that charge. Doesn't matter that he had someone fill in or that he was doing the right thing if something goes wrong with one of the people for whom he was responsible.
    se-alum;1218976 wrote:What is better publicity for the company, one of their employees helps a drowning man when he didn't have to or company's lifeguard watches man drown due to company policy.
    I don't think the publicity matters, as we deal with an issue of right and wrong.
    se-alum;1218976 wrote:It's a terrible policy on the company's part, on many levels.
    It's in place to protect the many that frequent the beach. Breaking a rule to do a good deed doesn't unbreak the rule. Where is it written that you should get a free pass for breaking rules as long as it is "to do the right thing?"
  • Steel Valley Football
    justincredible;1218950 wrote:You asked "according to whom" on whether the cop should intervene.
    Yes, I recall it was to dlazz.

    According to the department? To the cop? To the victim? To me? To you?

    It was a pretty simple question.
  • O-Trap
    LJ;1218978 wrote:The job of a lifeguard is to protect and serve the swimmers. Just like the job of a police officer is to protect and serve the citizens. It doesn't matter if they are inside some imaginary line or not.
    So if one man/woman/child is stuck from the undertow, and all the lifeguards go to save him/her, that's not a problem?

    Generally, a lifeguard's job is to ensure the safety of swimmers, but that isn't the most base responsibility. He was given the responsibility of ensuring the safety of a certain group of people. At some point, he failed to do that, even though it was for a good cause.
  • raiderbuck
    I guess companies don't give out warnings anymore?

    It's hard to tell from the article, but maybe they could have pulled Lopez aside and told him to never do that again instead of firing the guy.
  • O-Trap
    raiderbuck;1218998 wrote:I guess companies don't give out warnings anymore?

    It's hard to tell from the article, but maybe they could have pulled Lopez aside and told him to never do that again instead of firing the guy.
    Hell, I wish they would have given the guy a trophy, but considering that his actions DID put others' lives in danger, I can't blame them for firing him.

    Dollars to doughnuts say this guy will get the first lifeguard job he applies for. He has "life-saving" experience.
  • Steel Valley Football
    Nobody cares that the guy drowning was knowingly swimming in an area marked as "not guarded swim at your own risk".

    Had he been foolishly climbing a cliff or a tower or doing something else dangerous, and the lifeguard ran to help him, everyone here would be screaming let the Darwin award winner die.
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1218997 wrote:So if one man/woman/child is stuck from the undertow, and all the lifeguards go to save him/her, that's not a problem?
    Why are you changing the situation to a completely different one? He was the one who was asked to help, the company admitted that others covered his area, and he went out and did what a lifeguard is supposed to do.
    Generally, a lifeguard's job is to ensure the safety of swimmers, but that isn't the most base responsibility. He was given the responsibility of ensuring the safety of a certain group of people. At some point, he failed to do that, even though it was for a good cause.
    The duty of a lifeguard is not cut off by an imaginary line.
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1219000 wrote:Hell, I wish they would have given the guy a trophy, but considering that his actions DID put others' lives in danger, I can't blame them for firing him.

    Dollars to doughnuts say this guy will get the first lifeguard job he applies for. He has "life-saving" experience.
    He didn't put them in any more danger than if he was out helping somoene in his "zone"
  • O-Trap
    LJ;1219002 wrote:Why are you changing the situation to a completely different one? He was the one who was asked to help, the company admitted that others covered his area, and he went out and did what a lifeguard is supposed to do.
    The precedent would be the same. If the lines don't matter, and their most specific responsibility is just "saving lives," then there would be no problem with all lifeguards either relinquishing their responsibilities, or delegating to others what they, themselves, have been entrusted to take care of.
    LJ;1219002 wrote: The duty of a lifeguard is not cut off by an imaginary line.
    Those lives for whom he was responsible might disagree, depending on the circumstances while he was away from his post.
  • O-Trap
    LJ;1219003 wrote:He didn't put them in any more danger than if he was out helping somoene in his "zone"
    I'd say being nearby would make you better able to ensure someone's safety.
  • Con_Alma
    Steel Valley Football;1219001 wrote:Nobody cares that the guy drowning was knowingly swimming in an area marked as "not guarded swim at your own risk".

    ...
    Yes, I think that contributes to the situation as well.

    Were I that lifeguard I would have still went to help and probably should be fired* for doing so if my employers policy clearly tell me I should act differently.
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1219007 wrote:I'd say being nearby would make you better able to ensure someone's safety.
    If he is actively treating someone or in the water, no, it doesn't.
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1219005 wrote:The precedent would be the same. If the lines don't matter, and their most specific responsibility is just "saving lives," then there would be no problem with all lifeguards either relinquishing their responsibilities, or delegating to others what they, themselves, have been entrusted to take care of.



    Those lives for whom he was responsible might disagree, depending on the circumstances while he was away from his post.
    Then why have different police departments? Fire departments? I saw a house yesterday that had 3 CPD cruisers in it's driveway and Jefferson Township EMT's there. The house was in Jersey Township 2 miles outside of Columbus. Were they endangering the people in their jurisdictions by being the first to respond and help somoene in need in another? I can tell you with 100% certainty that those EMT's and officers will not be disciplined.
  • hasbeen
    LJ;1219003 wrote:He didn't put them in any more danger than if he was out helping somoene in his "zone"
    He put his "zone" in greater danger because less people covering the same area isn't as safe as having the correct number of lifeguards. And he put his entire "zone" in danger by not protecting it. That "zone" is populated by people who knowingly went somewhere they would be protected.

    Again, I'm with o-trap in saying I don't think the man did the wrong thing. But I don't think the company did either.
  • O-Trap
    LJ;1219010 wrote:If he is actively treating someone or in the water, no, it doesn't.
    Actively treating someone, I agree. In the water? So it makes no difference if he's in the water 20 feet away from someone as opposed to 1200 feet away?
  • O-Trap
    LJ;1219011 wrote:Then why have different police departments? Fire departments? I saw a house yesterday that had 3 CPD cruisers in it's driveway and Jefferson Township EMT's there. The house was in Jersey Township 2 miles outside of Columbus. Were they endangering the people in their jurisdictions by being the first to respond and help somoene in need in another? I can tell you with 100% certainty that those EMT's and officers will not be disciplined.
    Are they permitted to do that by their employer?
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1219014 wrote:Actively treating someone, I agree. In the water? So it makes no difference if he's in the water 20 feet away from someone as opposed to 1200 feet away?
    He can only help one person at a time. I think that is the whole point you are missing.
  • LJ
    O-Trap;1219016 wrote:Are they permitted to do that by their employer?
    can tell you with 100% certainty that those EMT's and officers will not be disciplined.