Lifeguard Fired For Helping Drowning Man
If corporations are people, they are especially heartless ones:
As lifeguards are paid and trained to do, Tomas Lopez rushed down the beach to rescue a drowning man — and then got fired for it.
The problem: Lopez stepped out of the beach zone his company is paid to patrol, a supervisor said Tuesday.
“I ran out to do the job I was trained to do,” said Lopez, 21, of Davie. “I didn’t think about it at all.”
At least two other lifeguards have quit in protest.
“What was he supposed to do? Watch a man drown?” asked one, Szilard Janko.
Company officials said they have to enforce the rules. The rule is in place because “we have liability issues and can’t go out of the protected area.” Besides, the unprotected area the victim was swimming in had signs warning swim at your own risk.
So, yes, the company’s position is watch him drown.
The job paid $8.25 an hour. No benefits.
Share This
It’s one of the problems I have with the corporation as person position. If a corporation is a person it is a sociopathic one.
And we hear applause for a man without health insurance dying without care, boos for a gay soldier, and now a corporation firing a lifeguard for saving a life. These are the conservative values of our time. A Mitt Romney America, the republican ideal.
Yep, this is the result of Corporate America taking over. A definite example of the sign of the times. On the upside: someone is going to read about this and want to hire the fired lifeguard. If I had a company, I sure would!
Even in America… wealth > life.
I’d like to believe that conservatives would also place the value of a human life above money. But quite frankly, with the furor over the healthcare ruling last week and the Tea Party people claiming that they will pay for others’ healthcare, and all the other things the Tea Party is forced to pay for…. education for children of illegal immigrants, social services, etc. Plus the fact that the Tea Party people do not treat other citizens equally (gay marriage) and actually take away rights of citizens…. leads me to believe that this is ultimately all about greed. The Tea Party types want to fight for every penny they have and they would rather see people suffer than part with a single dime. I agree with them that it IS their hard-earned money… but there is no compassion when you give more value to money and possessions than that of human suffering…. and especially place more value on money over that of a human life. This company embodies that belief we see in the Tea Party people. This company would much rather that a man drown.. than risk a lawsuit in which they might lose some money. Just like the Tea Party people would rather see fellow citizens suffer than part with a few more dollars. I would not have believed it if I had not witnessed the outrage over Obamacare. This legislation helps tens of millions of people (including children)… and the Tea Party people would rather that these tens of millions of people suffer than to part with some money. The Tea Party people may claim to be Christian, but Jesus never placed money over that of human suffering.
What the heck do you expect! If this lifeguard drowned what would it cost the corp? If the guard attempted a save and failed? Heck saved the guy but cracked his ribs and gotten sued? The insurance will cover him, oh wait since it wasn’t part of their contract maybe not. Corps are like that because of the actions of people. Being a good neighbor gets you sued or arrested. Why are people complaining? Your not supposed to do anything of your own, you wait for the authorities to tell you what the correct thing to do is.
I too firmly agree that any story is inherently political, and must always be construed as proving that conservatives are wrong, even if we have no idea of the political leanings of the people involved. I also believe that his firing was a direct result of CU. Corporations didn’t make bad decisions before.
(the above was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell).
Hey, I can play too: The real problem here is a litigious society gone too far. The truth is that the corporation probably could have gotten sued if something had gone amiss with the rescue attempt. And since trial lawyers donate heavily to Democrats, this is all the Democrats fault, I conclude.
Or, we can say this is a bad decision that will likely be reversed due to public backlash, and has nothing at all to do with politics. But that doesn’t benefit my side so what’s the point?
So how would you guys propose to run the beach? There’s an area they’ve committed to protect, with warning signs marking the edge of it. What should their policy be for people who get in trouble beyond them?
Of course “liability issues” should always trump an attempt to save a human life, and, of course, the fact that there were clear warning signs observance of which clearly trumps human life and, or course it is all the Democrats fault.
This company had a contract to “save lives.” But profits and liabilities trump a human life over the life of the corporation…
Seems to me “liability issues” is code for “dead swimmers in the protected area” and possibly even “dead lifeguards.” I don’t know what the conditions are in Hallandale Beach, but around here stretches of beach are restricted because of undertows that are dangerous even for lifeguards.
I don’t think I hear anyone saying this is the Democrats’ fault, but it is the TMV Democrats’ opportunity to suggest a better policy. The truth is I don’t like this particular policy either, but it’s not obvious to me the alternatives are better.
Would you have lifeguards save people wherever they are? A perfectly good idea, but one with some unpleasant consequences. It may lead to more deaths of lifeguards, or of swimmers in the “protected” area while the lifeguard is away from his post. And if you’re blurring the area of the beach you’re protecting and the area you’re not, you’ll encourage more beachgoers into the latter; you might as well take down the warning signs. Is this a policy you’d be comfortable defending in court to some dead lifeguard’s parents?
What gets me is that I’m pretty sure this incident was reviewed by actual people. At least one, and probably several people took a look at this situation, sized it up, and then made a decision to essentially fire this guy after reviewing the facts. Not suspend, not dock his pay, not reprimand, but fire him. We want nothing more to do with this person because he is hurting our business. Sigh.
“Would you have lifeguards save people wherever they are?”
I could be wrong but I believe that this lifeguard was acting not as a lifeguard but as a human being who saw another human being drown and thought he could help save his life.
That’s all.
But thanks for all the brilliant legal, political or whatever arguments.
First off, I agree this is not a political story & shouldn’t be parlayed into one.
The issue of liability may be a real concern for the business. That’s understandable. What isn’t understandable, as Slamfu alludes to, is why this is a “firing offense.” There are actions less than termination that would address this one time violation of a technical policy done for good reason…the saving of a life.
As an attorney, the company may have opened itself to another form of liability and
litigation, wrongful termination.
Anyway, I liked the young man’s reaction as reported by the newspaper:
“Tuesday, Lopez acknowledged breaking a rule, but said he would do it again if the situation called for it.
“It was the moral thing to do,” Lopez said. “I would never pick a job over my morals.”
You’re not wrong, Dorian, you’re just not answering the question.
And it’s a simple question: what policy would you have them follow?
Tidbits and Slam, you seem to be nudging toward an answer. Are you saying you agree they should punish the lifeguard, just less severely than firing him?
Now we’re getting more substantive.
slamfu: exactly. It was actual people making this decision, which negates the premise of the OP (that this decision was so bad because it was made by a corporation). In fact, the head of the corporation is now looking into whether the firing was inappropriate, and I think we can guess what the result of that will be given the bad press. In other words, this looks to be an overreaction from middle management (people) and is likely to be corrected by upper management (people).
Dorian: “I could be wrong but I believe that this lifeguard was acting not as a lifeguard but as a human being who saw another human being drown and thought he could help save his life.”
Yes, which leads me to my answer to Dr. J’s question: “So how would you guys propose to run the beach?”
My answer has several parts:
1) The safety of the beach should not be dependent on one lifeguard. If one lifeguard is not available, there should be a backup. My understanding is this is the case in typical operation: if one lifeguard is busy (saving someone’s life, for example), they alert other lifeguards so that they can keep watching for other problems in the same area. This means you have to have multiple lifeguards at each station, or overlapping areas of coverage. This policy has the added benefit of covering for lifeguards that break rules (for whatever reason) to go outside of their area.
Either that or there needs to be an understanding on the part of the public that lifeguards will not always be available. It’s generally understood, for example, that if 10 people are simultaneously drowning, lifeguards should not be expected to save them all, even if there is a backup system as described above.
So, in the end you have a match of service provided and public expectations. If I’m swimming in the ocean where there is a lifeguard, I know they will try to save me if they can, and I know that one of reasons they might not is that they are preoccupied with urgent non-work concerns. That’s why, just to not take any chances, I try not to drown.
2) Employment does not imply complete subordination. A company rule that specifies “you must never go out of your area” must be understand to only apply “under normal circumstances.” As Dorian says, people are still people, even if they are your employee. If the employee’s mother is on the boardwalk having a heart attack, you can bet the employee will and should go to her. On the flip side, the employer is not responsible for bad events that happen as a result of the absence of the employee, as long as they’ve covered for predictable circumstances as described in #1.
3) Once the employee breaks the rule, he is now acting on his own, not as an employee, because he is still his own person. If he ends up causing harm to the person he’s trying to save, it is his responsibility, not the employers. That brings up other issues, such as whether “good samaritan” laws should be enacted, but that’s not the employers concern.
There is no freerider issue here, Dr. J. If I’m swimming in a restricted area, I know there’s a good chance I won’t be saved. I’d still hope someone would try if they are able.
Dr. J,
I’m not sure I would “punish” the young man. More likely I would praise his action but remind him of company policy. All policies need to have exceptions, and saving a life seems a good place to start.
This sounds like a mom-and-pop company that didn’t handle things well. They get $334,000 a year to provide lifeguard services at the beach and local pools. The contract they have is with a city…their contract expires this year…and they may have shot themselves in the foot as business people with this action.
“You’re not wrong, Dorian, you’re just not answering the question.”
I am not asking to be judged “wrong” or “right.”
It is just my judgement call. Others may have differing opinions.
As to the question, “What policy would you have them follow?” there are two answers:
1. As to the company’s basic policy to have their lifeguards “tend” only to the “contracted” area, I’ll leave judgment of that up to the lawyers and liability experts.
2. As to the “policy” of firing this man for trying to save another man: Totally wrong.
Yes, in other words, that’s a policy you *don’t* support. What’s a policy you *do* support?
Tidbits, you and AD seem to be arguing for an unenforced policy, something they write on paper but make only token efforts to enforce. But that ducks the question of what the *real* policy should be: what they will actually expect employees to do and enforce well enough to get compliance.
Remember this case isn’t really an exception; people are probably wandering past the sign constantly. And if you’re employing the lifeguards, you’re putting them in a situation every single day where they may have to make this call. Do you secretly expect lifeguards to save people who get in trouble? Even if that puts their own lives or those of other swimmers in more danger? Are you willing to defend that in court in front of a dead lifeguard’s distraught parents?
And for the record, I don’t see any private vs public question here. If the city or county were hiring the lifeguards directly, they’d face the same policy questions.
“Yes, in other words, that’s a policy you *don’t* support. What’s a policy you *do* support?”
Oh, like perhaps, displaying some common sense,some compassion, some humanity, some public relations savvy and not fire the guy.
But that is just my opinion.
Dr. J,
I stand by my position. Sorry if we disagree.
tidbits
Disagree? I haven’t even offered an opinion.
Dr J.
The policy should be the lifeguards should always be attentive to the area they are responsible for, unless attention elsewhere is unavoidable. And I’d say the second part is implied in every rule and doesn’t need to be explicitly stated. I wouldn’t call that unenforceable, although I admit that it is vague and depends on someone making a judgment call on what “unavoidable” means. But business that involves humans is inherently messy and cannot be distilled down to a 100% clear and enforceable policy.
The city outsourced its responsibility to safeguard the beach to save money.
The company fired the lifeguard because he left his post which they considered was their only responsibility.
The lifeguard left his post to save a life which he felt was his highest responsibility.
That life was still in danger Tuesday in intensive care facility due to his irresponsibility (and may be costing the taxpayers for his care).
Which party acted the most responsibly and how should the public view that? Which party should profit from their vision of their responsibility?
Dr. J, in answer to your question, “So how would you guys propose to run the beach? There’s an area they’ve committed to protect, with warning signs marking the edge of it. What should their policy be for people who get in trouble beyond them?”
FROM THE LINKED ARTICLE:
“Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez’s area during the rescue and were on the phone with 911 operators.
“The beach remained protected at all times,” Ellis said.”
My policy would be to allow the lifeguard to patrol his area and if he sees someone who needs help then he should help them, wherever they are. Other lifeguards are around and can (and did) pitch in to help.
My question to the company is this: if they fired this guy for going outside his area, what reprimand did they give the other lifeguards for watching and helping out in an area that wasn’t assigned to them? Seems like they were going against company policy too. Though I’m sure the company was more than happy to overlook that bit because… well, you know… because the other lifeguards were protecting the company’s interest and not something so valueless as that of a human life in an unprotected area.
Looks like he was offered his job back.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-lifeguard-follow-20120704,0,4887768.story
So you’re saying essentially take down the sign, and not have a “protected” and an “unprotected” area? Or leave the sign up but expect everyone to ignore it? Fair enough.
Would you change your answer if the “unprotected” area was genuinely a lot more dangerous?
DaGoat, thanks for the new article.
The company is still placing its own interests above those of a human being.
LINK FROM THE LATEST ARTICLE:
“The company launched an investigation shortly after news of the incident began to quickly spread across the world.
But Ellis said since Monday’s incident, he’s been able to confirm that no area of the beach that his company is contracted to patrol was left unattended while Lopez went out of the area to assist a swimmer in distress.
“To me that was the most critical question: Was the beach ever left unattended?” Ellis said. “I have since learned that answer is no. The beach was supervised at all times.”
Given those circumstances, Lopez should not have been fired, Ellis said.”
In other words, if the lifeguard’s area had not been protected, the company still would have fired him.
We really are a nation irreconcilably divided if we can not even agree that a human life is more valuable than money or following “company policy”.
Stockboy
Right on. Some people just enjoy taking an opposing view no matter what the subject. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
A lifetime ago, while I was in high school, I was a lifeguard at a local beach. While we were employees of the local city, not a private corporation, one thing I clearly remember is being told that while our paid responsibility was the defined beach and swim area, our moral area of responsibility was up to us to define. And no one would be reprimanded if their moral code took them outside the defined area, as long as you did it safely. As a result no one ever turned down assisting someone, whether it was inside or outside the defined area. The primary thing it meant was if you were at a perimeter station you couldn’t leave the chair to assist someone outside the defined swim area, but you could call the relief guard or supervisor to take your chair or you could ask them to take the outside assistance and you backed them up. The key was keeping all the stations manned AND making sure all the lifeguards knew were all the other lifeguards were.
Another thing is that any swimmer assistance was made with a team of at least 2, 1 who actually performed the assistance and a second close by, ready to help if something goes wrong or to help drag the swimmer in or simply clear a path for them. I can guarantee you, if you’re the one who dragged a person to the beach, you want that second person there as you are not going to be in any shape to assess the swimmer or perform CPR if needed. At my beach it was always a 3 person team within the defined area (1 lifeguard was in a row boat, as such they backed any swimmer assistance within the defined area,) and a 2 person team outside it.
Lifeguarding is very much a team effort as everyone needs to know what is going on and what they have to do. Something as simple as getting to the waters edge or clearing swimmers in an unaffected area are often as important as the actual assistance. Cowboys or girls aren’t well received and can be downright dangerous to both the swimmer’s safety and the safety of the other lifeguards.
Without knowing more about the circumstances of this assistance I find it very hard to say if the firing was justified. The whole beach the company was responsible for remained covered, but did this lifeguard put himself at excess risk? Or were they short staffed such that him being outside the area would prevent them from performing an assist if needed? The articles just don’t give that information.
To repeat, TO, I haven’t taken an opposing view. I’ve been asking all the people denouncing the policy in the story to propose one of their own. For the couple people who managed to propose anything, I suggested some of the potential consequences and asked if they’re comfortable with those.
I haven’t offered my own opinion at all. And no one has asked, I suppose because they’re too busy denouncing it.
Dr. J: “So you’re saying essentially take down the sign, and not have a “protected” and an “unprotected” area? Or leave the sign up but expect everyone to ignore it? Fair enough.”
No, there is still a distinction between the protected and unprotected area. The distinction is the same as the difference between the lifeguards obligation as an employee and as a person who is capable of water rescue. When those obligations conflict, he needs to make a choice. I wouldn’t pass judgment on the choice, either way. My argument is that it unreasonable for an employer to expect a person to always choose his obligation as an employee over his obligation as a person. Therefore, any “rule” or “policy” implies unspecifiable exceptions, and when the rule or policy is broken, the employer should take the person’s personal obligation into account when deciding the correct consequence, if any.
The process of “taking the personal obligation into account” is subjective, but in my opinion the middle management didn’t do a good job of it in this case.
StockBoyLA: “We really are a nation irreconcilably divided if we can not even agree that a human life is more valuable than money or following “company policy”.”
If their really was a risk of litigation to the employer, I don’t think the question is so simple. If it really were a life > money question, I’d ask how many of us donate all of our disposable income to life preserving causes? Since most (all?) of us don’t, why should we expect a business owner to put his assets at risk so that he can ensure people swimming outside of the area the company is responsible for are safe? Why don’t we set up a fund and we can all donate to hire lifeguards for the unprotected beach?
Although I mentioned it in jest before, I really don’t think it’s fair to put the business owner in the position of choosing between his livelihood and the potential life of others. He ought to be able to protect both, which suggests, if litigation really was a danger in this scenario, that we need tort reform.
Dr. J.
Sorry, I realize now that you weren’t responding to my policy.
Dr J
I must have been mistaken in thinking you were venturing an opinion when you said:
“The truth is I don’t like this particular policy either, but it’s not obvious to me the alternatives are better.”
It seems to me, perhaps I’m, again, mistaken, that you enjoy positing alternatives and shooting them down even though you don’t like that original particular policy. To me that indicates that you, like others, enjoy taking an opposing view, even about your own suggested alternatives.
Like the rest of us, only you can determine your final conclusion about whether this life was worth more than all the bad alternatives you can imagine – or not. And whether the lifeguard should have been fired. And whether he should have been rehired. Life keeps throwing us these quandries and how we react to them is what makes people so interesting to observe – and blogs interesting enough to participate in.
TO, you’re right, I did venture that much of an opinion.
My goal isn’t to shoot down alternatives, it’s to encourage people to recognize the genuine dilemma the case poses. And perhaps to slow them in their haste to decry the people involved as heartless.
“I believe that this lifeguard was acting not as a lifeguard but as a human being who saw another human being drown and thought he could help save his life.”
Thank-you Dorian for once again cutting through the BS.