Archive

Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1219466 wrote:Could be. I'm personally not thinking it's the most responsible thing to trust a 21-year-old to make a responsible assessment every time.
    Yeah, and what happens next time he is life guarding someplace and there's a person 2 ft outside of his territory who drowns? Can't go help that guy, he's outside of the line his boss drew and he'll get fired and lambasted by people like SVF for having the audacity to try to save a life.

    Great life lessons we're teaching this kid here.

    And if you don't trust him to make a responsible assessment don't fucking certify him as a lifeguard. I trust a certified lifeguard to know what the situation is and when it's appropriate to leave his little area to save someone more than I do some guy at a desk or some insurance company goon.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1219591 wrote:Yeah, and what happens next time he is life guarding someplace and there's a person 2 ft outside of his territory who drowns? Can't go help that guy, he's outside of the line his boss drew and he'll get fired and lambasted by people like SVF for having the audacity to try to save a life.

    Great life lessons we're teaching this kid here.
    I didn't say don't go help him. Remember, I said it was the good thing to do.

    Too, unless he's on some sort of end-cap, there will be a lifeguard who will be responsible for helping there.
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1219592 wrote:I didn't say don't go help him. Remember, I said it was the good thing to do.

    Too, unless he's on some sort of end-cap, there will be a lifeguard who will be responsible for helping there.
    Right you did. It sounds as if he was an end-cap or something like that. Or at least that was my understanding of the story.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1219597 wrote:Right you did. It sounds as if he was an end-cap or something like that. Or at least that was my understanding of the story.
    That could be.

    He had a primary responsibility of keeping the people in his area safe. He left that one for an important exception. I agree with what he did. Hell, his employers probably sympathized with him. I doubt they fired him in ill will, but they were maintaining the rules of the location. I don't fault them for following through with the rules, though I suppose I might find it easier to vilify them if I knew their state of mind when doing it.
  • hoops23
    Let's let a guy die.

    Great publicity.
  • O-Trap
    hoops23;1219633 wrote:Let's let a guy die.

    Great publicity.
    I don't think the discussion has been what the lifeguard should have done.

    Moreover, morality is not correlated to publicity inherently.
  • hoops23
    O-Trap;1219635 wrote:I don't think the discussion has been what the lifeguard should have done.

    Moreover, morality is not correlated to publicity inherently.
    It all correlates to what the lifeguard did, so indirectly, the discussion involves what the lifeguard decided to do.

    Point is, what if this person who was near death wasn't mentally right? What if they weren't all there and weren't aware of what they were doing? I don't know much about the person and I doubt this to be the case, but in a split second decision, what do you expect a caring human being to do? How horrifying would it have been to witness the death of another individual knowing you could have done something about it?

    Point being, the fact that this is even a discussion really shows that moral virtues in this country alone are dwindling. Companies only care about their bottom line, and less about everything else... Including most employees.
  • I Wear Pants
    hoops23;1219637 wrote:It all correlates to what the lifeguard did, so indirectly, the discussion involves what the lifeguard decided to do.

    Point is, what if this person who was near death wasn't mentally right? What if they weren't all there and weren't aware of what they were doing? I don't know much about the person and I doubt this to be the case, but in a split second decision, what do you expect a caring human being to do? How horrifying would it have been to witness the death of another individual knowing you could have done something about it?

    Point being, the fact that this is even a discussion really shows that moral virtues in this country alone are dwindling. Public Companies only care about their bottom line, and less about everything else... Including most employees.
    FTFY
  • hoops23
    I Wear Pants;1219639 wrote:FTFY
    Eh, fair enough. I would tend to agree that there are still good private companies out there who put people first and still thrive.
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1219635 wrote:I don't think the discussion has been what the lifeguard should have done.

    Moreover, morality is not correlated to publicity inherently.
    It's what the company should have done that we're talking about. And the company shouldn't have fired them if they were attempting to do the right thing. But they weren't.
  • O-Trap
    hoops23;1219637 wrote:It all correlates to what the lifeguard did, so indirectly, the discussion involves what the lifeguard decided to do.
    It correlates, sure, but to suggest that because he broke the rules for a good reason, it's only ethical to give him a pass is silly. Moreover, to assume that just because they enforced the rule means they disagreed with his decision is also incredibly premature.
    hoops23;1219637 wrote: Point is, what if this person who was near death wasn't mentally right? What if they weren't all there and weren't aware of what they were doing? I don't know much about the person and I doubt this to be the case, but in a split second decision, what do you expect a caring human being to do?
    A good human being? I expect them to try to save the man, like I've said in this entire thread. However, I recognize that he had to break the rules to do so, and I don't blame the owners for enforcing the rules.

    It comes down to the stereotypical question of whether or not if a person who breaks rules for a good cause should be punished for breaking the rules. Just because there are repercussions for our actions doesn't mean we shouldn't take those actions.
    hoops23;1219637 wrote:How horrifying would it have been to witness the death of another individual knowing you could have done something about it?
    Oh horrible. Again, I am glad he did what he did, and I think he did the most justified thing. That doesn't mean I automatically assume he is immune from the repercussions of breaking the rules to do so.
    hoops23;1219637 wrote: Point being, the fact that this is even a discussion really shows that moral virtues in this country alone are dwindling. Companies only care about their bottom line, and less about everything else... Including most employees.
    And this statement is based on what? I've honestly never worked anywhere where I didn't feel valued as an employee.

    I have a hard time seeing a dwindling of moral virtue manifest in people believing that the known repercussions for actions aren't going to be ignored because the story is a feel-good one.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1219641 wrote:It's what the company should have done that we're talking about. And the company shouldn't have fired them if they were attempting to do the right thing. But they weren't.
    Why is it inherently the right thing to turn a blind eye?

    If I steal to feed the hungry, I've done a good thing ... one could make the claim that it was the right thing to do, as it saved the lives of starving people ... but does that mean that the stealing is forgiven?

    He should have gone out. They should enforce the known consequences for actions. That's fair. It sucks, but just because it sucks doesn't make it wrong.
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1219644 wrote:Why is it inherently the right thing to turn a blind eye?

    If I steal to feed the hungry, I've done a good thing ... one could make the claim that it was the right thing to do, as it saved the lives of starving people ... but does that mean that the stealing is forgiven?

    He should have gone out. They should enforce the known consequences for actions. That's fair. It sucks, but just because it sucks doesn't make it wrong.
    Disagree. Stealing robs someone of something they bought or earned. This is nothing like that.

    The company should enforce the policy when it is a situation that is in the spirit of the policy. I imagine the policy is in place so a person doesn't go outside the area and leave their area unwatched and someone gets hurt. That didn't happen here.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1219647 wrote:Disagree. Stealing robs someone of something they bought or earned. This is nothing like that.
    One could say he risked the safety of those in his charge. Could've also been seen as risking the ssecurity of the jobs of his peers if something had gone wrong and the man sued, which is hardly unheard of.

    Overall, he did the best thing, but he still broke the rules in the process. Insert any crime committed for a good cause. Hell, even a victimless one. I shouldn't be aghast or outraged when I do have to pay for the laws I did break, even if my overall goal was good and noble.
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1219648 wrote:One could say he risked the safety of those in his charge. Could've also been seen as risking the ssecurity of the jobs of his peers if something had gone wrong and the man sued, which is hardly unheard of.

    Overall, he did the best thing, but he still broke the rules in the process. Insert any crime committed for a good cause. Hell, even a victimless one. I shouldn't be aghast or outraged when I do have to pay for the laws I did break, even if my overall goal was good and noble.
    Perhaps he shouldn't be surprised, that doesn't mean that we as the public can't note that the company/whoever made the decision to fire him is a douche.

    If I jaywalk to save an old lady or dog or something from traffic could I still get a ticket for it? Sure. Would the cop be legally correct? Sure. Would he be a douche if he gave me a ticket in that situation? Absolutely.
  • sleeper
    Gosh a ruddies. It's impossible for a black man to keep a job today even if he saves his white brethren.
  • I Wear Pants
    sleeper;1219651 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. It's impossible for a black man to keep a job today even if he saves his white brethren.
    +1
  • Curly J
    sleeper;1219651 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. It's impossible for a black man to keep a job today even if he saves his white brethren.
    Race shouldn't matter, but would you fire your fry cook if he left his station and saved a choking patron by performing the Heimlich maneuver?
  • sleeper
    Curly J;1219653 wrote:Race shouldn't matter, but would you fire your fry cook if he left his station and saved a choking patron by performing the Heimlich maneuver?
    I disagree. It depends entirely on the color of someone's skin; like everything else in life.
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;1219650 wrote:
    If I jaywalk to save an old lady or dog or something from traffic could I still get a ticket for it? Sure. Would the cop be legally correct? Sure. Would he be a douche if he gave me a ticket in that situation? Absolutely.
    what if in the course of jaywalking you cause an accident?
  • isadore
    gosh a ruddies lets see what will happen;
    the life guard will get better job offers.
    the evil corporation will loss business as fewer people contract with it.
    and in fewer decent human beings will be willing to work for it.
  • se-alum
    O-Trap;1219648 wrote:One could say he risked the safety of those in his charge. Could've also been seen as risking the ssecurity of the jobs of his peers if something had gone wrong and the man sued, which is hardly unheard of.

    Overall, he did the best thing, but he still broke the rules in the process. Insert any crime committed for a good cause. Hell, even a victimless one. I shouldn't be aghast or outraged when I do have to pay for the laws I did break, even if my overall goal was good and noble.
    How can you liken this situation to a crime? He broke no laws. It's obvious the company knew they did the wrong thing, which is why they offered him his job back.
  • O-Trap
    se-alum;1219691 wrote:How can you liken this situation to a crime? He broke no laws. It's obvious the company knew they did the wrong thing, which is why they offered him his job back.
    Broken rule:those who enforce the rules::broken law:those who enforce the laws

    That's the parallel.
  • FatHobbit
    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.
    So the company apologized and offered to hire him back. I guess now the next time someone breaks a rule and gets fired then they can sue the company.
  • I Wear Pants
    Glory Days;1219674 wrote:what if in the course of jaywalking you cause an accident?
    But of course I didn't. What actually happened is what we should make judgements on. I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for those that dare to jaywalk though.