OT: How stupid is this?

[vtcwbuff]

Lifeguard fired for saving man.

 

[meyers7]

Similar to the one I heard about a clerk getting fired for stopping a robbery.

 

[kibblesnbits]

It's actually a perfectly natural result of privatizing a function with broad social charter (saving lives). The company has a narrower charter - patrolling and protecting a territory defined in a contract at a profit. The lifeguard put the company at risk while operating outside his assigned territory. Although it's a wonderful story it doesn't help the company in any way while potentially costing them money (what if the lifeguard was injured/killed, what if the man "saved" finds a basis to sue, what if someone drowned at his beach while he was outside his coverage area, etc.). To protect themselves they almost have no choice but to fire the kid. If next time doesn't turn out as well they will face increased liability if they ignored their rules this time.

 

[Aluminny69]

Ironically, I just read where there is a shortage of lifeguards. It costs $350 to take the certified lifeguard course, and low income people simply don't have that kind of money.

Lifeguard shortage leaves many pools, beaches unprotected​

 

[SubbaBub]

Ironically, I just read where there is a shortage of lifeguards. It costs $350 to take the certified lifeguard course, and low income people simply don't have that kind of money.

Lifeguard shortage leaves many pools, beaches unprotected​

Grownups can't take a part time seasonal job that pays slightly above minimum wage. That's why they're usually college students and ski instructors. Any regular adult who would want that job wouldn't be hired. The real question is, where are the kids?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Icebear]

It's actually a perfectly natural result of privatizing a function with broad social charter (saving lives). The company has a narrower charter - patrolling and protecting a territory defined in a contract at a profit. The lifeguard put the company at risk while operating outside his assigned territory. Although it's a wonderful story it doesn't help the company in any way while potentially costing them money (what if the lifeguard was injured/killed, what if the man "saved" finds a basis to sue, what if someone drowned at his beach while he was outside his coverage area, etc.). To protect themselves they almost have no choice but to fire the kid. If next time doesn't turn out as well they will face increased liability if they ignored their rules this time.

And thus the real problem exists because legal considerations have come to over ride moral considerations in our society.

 

[vtcwbuff]

The stupidity comment was the way the company handled it. Since everything worked out OK the company's a** was covered and one of their guys was a hero. Any discippline could have been kept in house and the company could have avoided some really crappy publicity.

Unfortunatley though IB is correct. The ambulance chasers rule the roost.

 

[stamfordhusky]

It's actually a perfectly natural result of privatizing a function with broad social charter (saving lives). The company has a narrower charter - patrolling and protecting a territory defined in a contract at a profit. The lifeguard put the company at risk while operating outside his assigned territory. Although it's a wonderful story it doesn't help the company in any way while potentially costing them money (what if the lifeguard was injured/killed, what if the man "saved" finds a basis to sue, what if someone drowned at his beach while he was outside his coverage area, etc.). To protect themselves they almost have no choice but to fire the kid. If next time doesn't turn out as well they will face increased liability if they ignored their rules this time.

Privatizing is not necessarily the issue. If a town-employed lifeguard left the beach he was supposed to be guarding to rescue someone on an "unguarded" stretch of beach, the town would surely be sued if someone drowned on the piece of beach the guard had left. The more fundamental problem is our legal system.

 

[pap49cba]

Company admits it was wrong... Offers job back.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Privatizing is not necessarily the issue. If a town-employed lifeguard left the beach he was supposed to be guarding to rescue someone on an "unguarded" stretch of beach, the town would surely be sued if someone drowned on the piece of beach the guard had left. The more fundamental problem is our legal system.

I disagree. I'm sure the kid wouldn't have been fired had he worked for a government agency. The difference is that a company considers the task of lifeguarding a particular beach to be a path to a profit (which is, after all, their fiduciary duty), while government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility. It's a different perspective and it is the reason we should never outsource certain functions like police and fire protection.

 

[vtcwbuff]

while government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility.

KBs - I have an entirely different view of the priorities of government.

 

[Bestiarius]

And thus the real problem exists because legal considerations have come to over ride moral considerations in our society.

And why has this happened? (Oh boy, here we go!)

 

[arty155]

...the kid wouldn't have been fired had he worked for a government agency. ... government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility ...it is the reason we should never outsource certain functions like police and fire protection.

-Thank you. Thank you for lighting this candle (as much as I enjoy cursing the dark).

- If my neighbor (including everyone here) runs to a lifeguard begging, begging for help because their kid/parent is drowning, I want a lifeguard to act exactly as this kid did. Period. Listening to him handwringing knowingly about his job and our legal system would be of little solace, interest, or use to my neighbor… who desperately just needs someone to ‘do the right thing,’ not ‘do things right.’ The rest is noise.

 

[Icebear]

-Thank you. Thank you for lighting this candle (as much as I enjoy cursing the dark).

- If my neighbor (including everyone here) runs to a lifeguard begging, begging for help because their kid/parent is drowning, I want a lifeguard to act exactly as this kid did. Period. Listening to him handwringing knowingly about his job and our legal system would be of little solace, interest, or use to my neighbor… who desperately just needs someone to ‘do the right thing,’ not ‘do things right.’ The rest is noise.

Amen.

 

[stamfordhusky]

I disagree. I'm sure the kid wouldn't have been fired had he worked for a government agency. The difference is that a company considers the task of lifeguarding a particular beach to be a path to a profit (which is, after all, their fiduciary duty), while government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility. It's a different perspective and it is the reason we should never outsource certain functions like police and fire protection.

He may or may not have been fired - but there's no question at all that the municipality would be sued. I've seen many towns sued over much smaller issues.

 

[JACKofallTrades]

I disagree. I'm sure the kid wouldn't have been fired had he worked for a government agency. The difference is that a company considers the task of lifeguarding a particular beach to be a path to a profit (which is, after all, their fiduciary duty), while government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility. It's a different perspective and it is the reason we should never outsource certain functions like police and fire protection.

I don't wholly disagree... but I'll expand the discussion a bit. The government's primary (constitutional) responsibility is safety. But that was also the (general underlying) responsibility of the (private) lifeguard Co too. The fact the (individual) bozo who fired the kid was wrong (we all agree? )... shouldn't mean private companies (for various community or municipal issues) are (all) bad. In fact, quite the opposite.

First, can't Public responsibility be worse? Anyone think the way more & more SWAT police raids & overkill are being used is OK? Does it matter if it's public or private? It's worse being public (police), because there's no recourse from the law... they ARE the law. 4.5 Swat Raids per day in MD alone. Innocents are involved more & more with these errors.

The TSA is the government agency responsible for airport safety. Anyone think they do a good (or cost effective, $60B) job? In fact, the one airport that was allowed to offer a private contract... outshines the public ones:



The reason private companies will (generally) do better than public ones... is because there's competition. With solely public, it's a monopoly. Outside of the military & judicial system (courts & police), which are bedrock constitutional responsibilities of government, almost everything can be done better thru private organizations. Cities who have outsourced garbage & road repair to (private) Co's (thru competitive contacts) save taxpayers (moocho) money and get better results.

 

[cohenzone]

I disagree. I'm sure the kid wouldn't have been fired had he worked for a government agency. The difference is that a company considers the task of lifeguarding a particular beach to be a path to a profit (which is, after all, their fiduciary duty), while government considers protection of citizens to be a fundamental responsibility. It's a different perspective and it is the reason we should never outsource certain functions like police and fire protection.

What are you, some sort of clear thinker?

 

[alexrgct]

Similar to the one I heard about a clerk getting fired for stopping a robbery.

This actually makes perfect sense. Companies like 7-Eleven have policies about proper protocol should a robbery happen, and these policies explicitly forbid trying to stop it. Robberies are more likely to turn violent with resistance, which in turn means the employees are more likely to get hurt and the company is more likely to be sued of it encouraged its employees to resist. Instead, the message is that your life is not worth the money a robber is attempting to take, and they actively discourage behavior that's counter to that policy.

 

[Adesmar123]

1) The life guard should not have gotten fired. Reprimanded yes for leaving his area without providing other coverage, but not fired. Remember he went out of his territory. What if someone else drowned in his original territory? Yes the city and the company would have been sued. The problem wasn't what he did but how he did it. By the way, there would have been lawsuits and rightfully so if he had not responded as he did.

2) He would not have been fired if he were a government employee. Essentially, that would not be a serious enough offense to merit termination in the organized labor world. If he were fired it would have been overturned on appeal.

3) Charters have nothing to do with any of this. Its about contracts - either labor or business.

 

[HuskyNan]

1) The life guard should not have gotten fired. Reprimanded yes for leaving his area without providing other coverage, but not fired. Remember he went out of his territory. What if someone else drowned in his original territory?

The company admits that there was coverage in the area where the young man worked even without his being there. But what does the young man do - ignore a real emergency because another one might occur somewhere else?

 

[Adesmar123]

Reprimanded yes for leaving his area without providing other coverage, but not fired. Remember he went out of his territory. What if someone else drowned in his original territory?

If there was still coverage in his original area. then he acted appropriately.

 

[easttexastrash]

This reminds me of a story a few years ago where a security guard did not help a guy who had been attacked by a group. He did not help because the company contract disallowed it.

There was a story not too long ago where firefighters allowed a house to burn down because the owners had not paid their fire protection fee (their county had no fire department).

Thank goodness this kid had the common sense to just do the right thing and worry about the consequences later. Those are moments that define a person's character. I hope the person that he helped save rewards him in some way.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

This reminds me of a story a few years ago where a security guard did not help a guy who had been attacked by a group. He did not help because the company contract disallowed it.

There was a story not too long ago where firefighters allowed a house to burn down because the owners had not paid their fire protection fee (their county had no fire department).

Thank goodness this kid had the common sense to just do the right thing and worry about the consequences later. Those are moments that define a person's character. I hope the person that he helped save rewards him in some way.

I remember the fire one. Part of the issue was that folks would not pay their fire fee ahead of time, assuming that they would get coverage anyway.

That's part of the ultimate problem these posts are addressing - where has the RESPONSIBILITY of folks gone? Doesn't make letting a house burn down right, incidently, but does help to highlight the really dreadful conundrums that are faced in so many situations. For example, in the house case, you put the fire out because it is the right thing - but you go out of business because no one pays their fees?? Etc.