Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

• O-Trap

  

  LJ;1219108 wrote:This isn't going anywhere. Enjoy your love of zero-tolerance policies.

  I didn't say I love them. I said I understand them.
• LJ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1219114 wrote:Nothing imaginary about the boundary.

  Lines drawn on paper are imaginary. Why do you think I have fences around all of my property?
• queencitybuckeye

  Sykotyk;1219116 wrote:The question then you should answer is what if the guy was 10 feet outside the boundary line?
  
  I mean, after all. There is a line you're drawing pretty clearly. It seems you'd rather just let everyone die because 'protocol must be followed' to protect your employer.
  
  If you're a courier, and your boss tells you this package needs to get from Youngstown to Cleveland by noon, and you see a horrific car crash, and a person flies out of the car and skids across the road in front of you as you slam on the brakes, should you A) not be late, and drive around their dying body, B) stop, be late, and do the right thing, or C) hope that a miracle happens where both outcomes happen?
  
  If your boss fires you due to liability of a contract for doing 'the right thing', then your company doesn't deserve the contracts they're holding. Money over people is not the way ANY person or business should run.

  If you correctly choose to do the right thing, why do you believe that correct decision need be (or even should be) free of consequence?
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219107 wrote:Except that "what if" scenario was only determined by imaginary boundries. Nothing more.
  
  My answer was not incorrect. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

  
  You answered his hypothetical question with an answer about CPD policy, which makes zero sense. Don't be a moron, LJ.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219108 wrote:This isn't going anywhere. Enjoy your love of zero-tolerance policies.

  
  Read: LJ is wrong so he's out lol.
• queencitybuckeye

  LJ;1219119 wrote:Lines drawn on paper are imaginary. Why do you think I have fences around all of my property?

  They aren't. They are intangible, but not imaginary.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219119 wrote:Lines drawn on paper are imaginary. Why do you think I have fences around all of my property?

  
  Pitbulls?
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219124 wrote:You answered his hypothetical question with an answer about CPD policy, which makes zero sense. Don't be a moron, LJ.

  Name calling, mature.
  

  Steel Valley Football;1219125 wrote:Read: LJ is wrong so he's out lol.

  False, your opinion is no more right than mine. I think the policy is wrong, you think it is right. How am I "wrong so he's out"?
• LJ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1219129 wrote:They aren't. They are intangible, but not imaginary.

  
  dammit
• se-alum

  

  O-Trap;1219115 wrote:The problem with wiggle room is that it is then left up to the judgment of the individual, and I doubt this company wants to stake the safety of those that have entrusted themselves into the care of the lifeguards on a given person's judgment at the time.
  
  Nobody was hurt, no, but do the ends justify the means? What if something HAD happened? Would that have made his or the company's actions any more or less justifiable? At that point, it may be too late to nip any potential problem in the bud.

  You can have policies, but not have them be zero tolerance. For instance, the policy can be that you do not leave your tower to go outside your protected area, but there can be different punishments for the guy that leaves his tower to help save a life, and the guy that leaves his tower to go talk to some buddies.
• queencitybuckeye

  Was "zero tolerance" mentioned in a link I missed? Because the company chose to enforce their rules does not necessarily mean they have a "zero tolerance policy".
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219131 wrote:Name calling, mature.
  
  
  
  False, your opinion is no more right than mine. I think the policy is wrong, you think it is right. How am I "wrong so he's out"?

  
  I'm not name calling - I'm asking you NOT to be a moron.
  
  You were wrong on your "to whom, the dept" answer. As stated above, it was a hypothetical dept and you answered it by giving examples of the CPD, which makes no sense. Thus, me asking you not to be a moron.
• I Wear Pants

  SVF...siding with any and all authority figures since whenever the fuck he was born.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219131 wrote:False, your opinion is no more right than mine. I think the policy is wrong, you think it is right. How am I "wrong so he's out"?

  Btw, I never gave an opinion one way or another. My first comment was that he made a choice to go against company policy. That's all.
  
  Other than that, I've only explained why companies make policies as such, which for some reason you can't understand.
• se-alum

  

  My last post on the subject, but the great thing is, the company will suffer much more than the kid that got fired, and that makes me happy. You shouldn't choose "issues of liability" over humanity.
• Steel Valley Football

  I Wear Pants;1219143 wrote:SVF...siding with any and all authority figures since whenever the **** he was born.

  
  Where did I do that? Quote me please.
• FatHobbit

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219148 wrote:Where did I do that? Quote me please.

  That shouldn't be difficult.
• queencitybuckeye

  se-alum;1219147 wrote: You shouldn't choose "issues of liability" over humanity.

  Spoken like someone whose living and those of several others aren't on the line. Easy to pontificate with no skin in the game.
• LJ

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219145 wrote:Btw, I never gave an opinion one way or another. My first comment was that he made a choice to go against company policy. That's all.
  
  Other than that, I've only explained why companies make policies as such, which for some reason you can't understand.

  I'm having no problems understanding, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
• I Wear Pants

  Steel Valley Football;1219145 wrote:Btw, I never gave an opinion one way or another. My first comment was that he made a choice to go against company policy. That's all.
  
  Other than that, I've only explained why companies make policies as such, which for some reason you can't understand.

  You're thinking is that he made a choice against company policy (true) so therefore he/we shouldn't complain about him being fired. Or at least that has been your train of thought in other threads wherein you seemed to have similar opinions.
  
  If your opinion is not to side with the company then we don't understand why you keep posting things like "he made a choice to go against company policy". That's pretty fucking obvious since he did it. We all know that, none of us are confused that this was within the bounds of company policy. We're saying that this is a prime case for them to ignore their policy and act like humans. They chose not to and are being appropriately lambasted in the public eye for it.
• Steel Valley Football

  I Wear Pants;1219158 wrote:You're thinking is that he made a choice against company policy (true) so therefore he/we shouldn't complain about him being fired. Or at least that has been your train of thought in other threads wherein you seemed to have similar opinions.
  
  If your opinion is not to side with the company then we don't understand why you keep posting things like "he made a choice to go against company policy". That's pretty ****ing obvious since he did it. We all know that, none of us are confused that this was within the bounds of company policy. We're saying that this is a prime case for them to ignore their policy and act like humans. They chose not to and are being appropriately lambasted in the public eye for it.

  So here we go again. You want an exception to be made, which sets a precedent and can be upheld in court...which is why the company has the rule in the first place. If they make an exception now then they must allow it in the future, which negates the policy altogether.
• Steel Valley Football

  LJ;1219155 wrote:I'm having no problems understanding, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

  I'm not saying you must. I'm saying it's illogical to suggest or expect any other outcome as a result of this situation, other than the one that played out.
• I Wear Pants

  Steel Valley Football;1219169 wrote:So here we go again. You want an exception to be made, which sets a precedent and can be upheld in court...which is why the company has the rule in the first place. If they make an exception now then they must allow it in the future, which negates the policy altogether.

  That's not really how company policies work.
• Steel Valley Football

  I Wear Pants;1219172 wrote:That's not really how company policies work.

  If the company kept this guy employed and then fired the next guy who did it, yes it most certainly is. The next guy could sue the company to get his job back. Then the policy is pretty much negated, yes, as there would be no enforcement. Without the policy in place, the company would not get insurance coverage.
• FatHobbit

  

  Steel Valley Football;1219178 wrote:If the company kept this guy employed and then fired the next guy who did it, yes it most certainly is. The next guy could sue the company to get his job back. Then the policy is pretty much negated, yes, as there would be no enforcement. Without the policy in place, the company would not get insurance coverage.

  At least in Ohio, employment is at will. If you are not in a protected class you can be fired for no reason at all. So the next guy can't sue because they didn't fire one person, but did fire someone else.
  
  What happens if the guy didn't leave his chair, someone drowns outside his area and their family sues because he could have helped and didn't? (If we are just making up random scenarios where people can sue.)