• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. lifeguard fired for rescue outside beach zone

ttwtt78640 said:
The "drowning" man was on the beach and being assisted by others, with paramedics already on the way, by the time the "hero" arrived to "help". An employer CAN dictate that you stay on YOUR beach while being paid to do so, or find another job.
Click to expand...

The Obama syndrome.

The guy is a hero for merely being present.
 
radcen said:
I know you think your "Crickets..." thing is cute and proves a point, but it would only mean what you want it to mean if you waited awhile and followed-up after a non-response. Included in the original post it is merely juvenile and presumptuous.
Click to expand...

So, if you can not counter the argument presented, simply make fun of the style of the post? I am pointing out that MANY examples of private services exist, that FAR outperform similar public services, from trash collection to education, yet many assert that is not the case. I simply pointed out that the OVER GENEROUS public (and union) salary and benefits packages are one of the main reasons for this. While it is ILLEGAL (severe IRS penalties) for a private citzen to access their even own personal IRA, 401K or Keogh accounts before age 59 1/2, it is COMMON practice for the public sector to retire nearly a decade earlier AND to demand additional "tax free" benefits, such as medical care insurance as well.
 
Somerville said:
Then why have insurance? If you require payment for a claim filed but that eventually hurts your business more than the compensation paid out - what's the point of having insurance. You seem to be arguing that it would be better for a company or person found liable for injury to another to just pay for the injury instead of paying insurance premiums which would/could cause the company to go belly-up "eventually".

History tells us that in the good ol' days, a company found liable for injury would often just declare itself bankrupt and the owners would then start another company doing the same business. I actually worked for a guy who did that with several companies both before I worked for him and after I left his employ. Not an ethical person but he always made money for himself. Four companies where he was the CEO went bankrupt but his personal bank account increased every time.
Click to expand...
you worked for THE donald trump?!

let's examine a similar scenario, one where a seven year old boy, pushed by the tide, drifts a few feet away from the zone the lifeguard is responsible for
and the lifeguard, knowing he is going to lose his job with this same company for helping outside his zone, elects not to rescue the kid, resulting in the drowning death of the boy
how is that employer going to react when the media exposes that the victim could have been saved had the lifeguard responded to the cries for help
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, if you can not counter the argument presented, simply make fun of the style of the post?
Click to expand...

I think we should make fun of stuff whenever possible. Being selective about it just because one doesn't have a good counter is lazy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, if you can not counter the argument presented, simply make fun of the style of the post? I am pointing out that MANY examples of private services exist, that FAR outperform similar public services, from trash collection to education, yet many assert that is not the case. I simply pointed out that the OVER GENEROUS public (and union) salary and benefits packages are one of the main reasons for this. While it is ILLEGAL (severe IRS penalties) for a private citzen to access their even own personal IRA, 401K or Keogh accounts before age 59 1/2, it is COMMON practice for the public sector to retire nearly a decade earlier AND to demand additional "tax free" benefits, such as medical care insurance as well.
Click to expand...
So, if you can not counter the argument presented, simply make fun of me making fun of the style of your post?

And I simply pointed out that the desired result doesn't always end up as hoped. Sometimes contracting out works well, sometimes it doesn't. There was nothing to refute, other than you incorrectly extrapolating and reading more into what I said than what was actually there.
 
Somerville said:
Cheaper for the taxpayers to have the lifeguards as county employees like in Palm Beach County.

The last thing this company can afford is for its CEO to take a pay cut.
Click to expand...
No...its not...and there is a REASON why cities and county's contract out services where they can. you only see the tree, not the forest. You dont see retirements costs, healthcare costs, legal obligations and contributions, etc. You see "privater sector business is eeeeevil", not "excessive government is killing budgets across the country".

This IS a tough call to make. By reading the story you learn that the individual being 'saved' was so far out of the lifeguards AOR that by the time he got there he had already been rescued by a citizen. And what happens when he is now 1500 feet from where he is supposed to be and there is an incident where he is supposed to be? Who gets sued then, and what the rhetoric? "Idiot lifeguard...off playing 'hero' on a part of the beach where it was posted there was no lifeguard, meanwhile some child drowns right in front of his station."

I feel for the guy...it is a no win situation. Luckily NO ONE died.
 
radcen said:
So, if you can not counter the argument presented, simply make fun of me making fun of the style of your post?
Click to expand...

Damnit, people, always make fun of stuff when possible. This is debate and style counts.

Included in the original post it is merely juvenile and presumptuous.
Click to expand...
That's funny.
 
VanceMack said:
No...its not...and there is a REASON why cities and county's contract out services where they can. you only see the tree, not the forest. You dont see retirements costs, healthcare costs, legal obligations and contributions, etc. You see "privater sector business is eeeeevil", not "excessive government is killing budgets across the country".

This IS a tough call to make. By reading the story you learn that the individual being 'saved' was so far out of the lifeguards AOR that by the time he got there he had already been rescued by a citizen. And what happens when he is now 1500 feet from where he is supposed to be and there is an incident where he is supposed to be? Who gets sued then, and what the rhetoric? "Idiot lifeguard...off playing 'hero' on a part of the beach where it was posted there was no lifeguard, meanwhile some child drowns right in front of his station."

I feel for the guy...it is a no win situation. Luckily NO ONE died.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Somerville said:
Are you really trying to say the man ran down the beach to help in a rescue simply because he 'knew' he would make more money by getting fired?


Here in South Florida, we have some nice court records concerning various county officials going to jail because of the payoffs they received for ensuring some of those "money-saving" contracts were signed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps HE did not, yet the NEXT day, AFTER THIS MADE THE NEWS, other employees quit/got fired for expressing their agreement to ignore company policy TO GET ON THE NEWS TOO. Hmm...
 
VanceMack said:
No...its not...and there is a REASON why cities and county's contract out services where they can. you only see the tree, not the forest. You dont see retirements costs, healthcare costs, legal obligations and contributions, etc. You see "privater sector business is eeeeevil", not "excessive government is killing budgets across the country".

This IS a tough call to make. By reading the story you learn that the individual being 'saved' was so far out of the lifeguards AOR that by the time he got there he had already been rescued by a citizen. And what happens when he is now 1500 feet from where he is supposed to be and there is an incident where he is supposed to be? Who gets sued then, and what the rhetoric? "Idiot lifeguard...off playing 'hero' on a part of the beach where it was posted there was no lifeguard, meanwhile some child drowns right in front of his station."

I feel for the guy...it is a no win situation. Luckily NO ONE died.
Click to expand...
It is a no-win situation, definitely.
 
Potential similar scenario:

A guy is working in a dry cleaners. A car wreck happens right outside his door. One of the people is seriously injured and immediate aid would be really helpful. He can run out and provide aid to the injured driver, but a customer shows up and wants their dry cleaning and is in a rush for an event in 2 hours. Would the guy be out-of-line to tell the customer he needs to provide aid to the injured driver and that the customer has to wait? Providing aid could be long and drawn out, no way to tell at that point, and it could cause the customer to be late for their event.
 
radcen said:
Potential similar scenario:
Click to expand...


It's not about customers, even if there were, presumably, just enough lifeguards at the guarded beach to secure it safely. It's about a company's liability for employees taking job/trained action as a public service. A company cannot have that as something that 'just goes on'. That would be a reputation for such, and if an employee did something stupid then the company could also be held liable. Additionally, taking outside responsibility (and a lax policy regarding such) can have bad results and further liability. If the lifeguard had drowned...

Anyway, this case goes far beyond a simple cash register assessment of why such a policy could be in place.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Potential similar scenario:

A guy is working in a dry cleaners. A car wreck happens right outside his door. One of the people is seriously injured and immediate aid would be really helpful. He can run out and provide aid to the injured driver, but a customer shows up and wants their dry cleaning and is in a rush for an event in 2 hours. Would the guy be out-of-line to tell the customer he needs to provide aid to the injured driver and that the customer has to wait? Providing aid could be long and drawn out, no way to tell at that point, and it could cause the customer to be late for their event.
Click to expand...
I dont think you can compare the two events. Life saving or even care giving always trumps 'customer service'. Id be willing to bet MOST people would have behaved in the same manner as did the lifeguard that was fired. If the company was more capably ran they could have used that as one of them there 'teachable moments' (teaching moments). They even could have approached the city with their concerns about expanding service or involved the media with their concern. It was handled wrong (unless there is more going on than what we are being told-which is frequently the case).
 
'Customer service' was life saving (securing a beach without risk). That's different context. Of course anyone would do it, presuming they're capable. That's not the point. The point is, the company cannot have a history of condoning outside responsibility.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont think you can compare the two events. Life saving or even care giving always trumps 'customer service'. Id be willing to bet MOST people would have behaved in the same manner as did the lifeguard that was fired. If the company was more capably ran they could have used that as one of them there 'teachable moments' (teaching moments). They even could have approached the city with their concerns about expanding service or involved the media with their concern. It was handled wrong (unless there is more going on than what we are being told-which is frequently the case).
Click to expand...
It's not a perfect analogy, but the similarities are intriguing, and close enough that I think it demonstrates that "rules are rules" do NOT always apply. This is more of a case-by-case scenario. In terms of liability, I'm not so sure that the dry cleaners would be off-the-hook liability-wise if the employee rendered aid outside the front door. It could be argued that he didn't abandon his job and quit (though I'm sure it could be argued that way as well), he just reacted to a close-by human situation.
 
Most city/county retirement plans are 401(k)s NOT pensions, for the most part that is an old saw drug out to promote 'outsourcing'.

Most public sector unions are quite weak compared to firefighter/police ones. Lawton, the biggest town to me, has a union but also has had 401(k) retirement plans for years.

As I mentioned my wife makes 50% more than a regular employee when she signs on as a contractor. Our insurance costs us $2.50 an hour.

Most reasons for outsourcing are excuses to feed taxpayer money to for profits businesses, so we taxpayers pay more for less.
 
ecofarm said:
'Customer service' was life saving (securing a beach without risk). That's different context. Of course anyone would do it, presuming they're capable. That's not the point. The point is, the company cannot have a history of condoning outside responsibility.
Click to expand...
And I don't discount that. Liability concerns for a company are indeed very real. That's why I am focusing more on tort reform and our legal environment, so that maybe individuals can help in extraordinary situations without having unnecessary fall-out over liability concerns. "Good citizen" laws (or, whatever they're called) should apply in cases like this, and should shield the company as well.
 
notquiteright said:
Most city/county retirement plans are 401(k)s NOT pensions, for the most part that is an old saw drug out to promote 'outsourcing'.

Most public sector unions are quite weak compared to firefighter/police ones. Lawton, the biggest town to me, has a union but also has had 401(k) retirement plans for years.

As I mentioned my wife makes 50% more than a regular employee when she signs on as a contractor. Our insurance costs us $2.50 an hour.

Most reasons for outsourcing are excuses to feed taxpayer money to for profits businesses, so we taxpayers pay more for less.
Click to expand...
Is she a truly independent contractor, where she pays her own taxes, gets a 1099 instead of a W-2, and such?
 
PeteEU said:
I hope he sues the company for wrongful dismissal.. if that is even possible in the US.
Click to expand...

Florida is what we call an "at will employment" state. What this boils down to is that by law, unless otherwise stipulated in an employment contract, an employer (or employee) can terminate employment at any time.

So in this state, no not possible.

With all the publicity happening for this, the kid is much better off for losing his job now anyhow, he will not be lacking for job offers I am sure (or donations to help with tuition). Plus he will also have a clean conscience for doing what he thought was the right thing - in that situation it is a good call to say **** the policy - even if he was late getting to the scene and did not actually rescue the man himself.
 
Another scenario to consider here. What if while this guy went to save someone outside his zone, someone had drown in his zone? What if that were your child that drown in his zone while he was out saving this guy who went to a spot marked to swim at his own risk? I am not saying the guy did the wrong thing helping someone, but because of the sue happy culture we live in I can't blame the company for protecting themselves. The reality is if someone else had fallen victim while he was out doing the right thing, the injured party (or their family) wouldn't have cared that he was busy saving a life, they would only care that he should have been saving theirs. That is the culture we live in.
 
radcen said:
And I don't discount that. Liability concerns for a company are indeed very real. That's why I am focusing more on tort reform and our legal environment, so that maybe individuals can help in extraordinary situations without having unnecessary fall-out over liability concerns. "Good citizen" laws (or, whatever they're called) should apply in cases like this, and should shield the company as well.
Click to expand...

That makes NO sense. Consider what we have HERE in THIS CASE. Two beaches, one guraded (at taxpayer expense) and one not guarded (and clearly posted as such). The PAID life guard LEFT his assigned post, at the supposed to be GUARDED beach, to "assist" in guarding the the clealy marked UNGUARDED beach. WHY was the distinction made in the first place? If I pay taxes for my "public" services, then I expect them to be used AS DIRECTED, thus they should remain guarding the assigned beach, AS THEY ARE PAID TO DO, and not to VOLUNTEER my (tax supported) services for the UNGUARDED beach instead.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That makes NO sense. Consider what we have HERE in THIS CASE. Two beaches, one guraded (at taxpayer expense) and one not guarded (and clearly posted as such). The PAID life guard LEFT his assigned post, at the supposed to be GUARDED beach, to "assist" in guarding the the clealy marked UNGUARDED beach. WHY was the distinction made in the first place? If I pay taxes for my "public" services, then I expect them to be used AS DIRECTED, thus they should remain guarding the assigned beach, AS THEY ARE PAID TO DO, and not to VOLUNTEER my (tax supported) services for the UNGUARDED beach instead.
Click to expand...

If I saw a person drowning, I don't give a **** what I am paid to do. I would not put my job or its "directives" above another person's life, nor would I expect anyone else to.
 
marduc said:
If I saw a person drowning, I don't give a **** what I am paid to do. I would not put my job or its "directives" above another person's life, nor would I expect anyone else to.
Click to expand...

He didn't see a person drowning. In fact, by the time he arrived on scene, the person had been pulled from the water. In the meantime, a 4-year-old girl drowned directly in front of the tower he was supposed to be sitting at. Get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom