You are a lifeguard at a beach. You see a drowning swimmer. You rescue that person. But, you make a mistake. You see you work for a private company that has the contract for public beaches. That company has rules. One of those rules says you can’t go past a certain, shall we say, line in the sand. And so, since the person who was drowning was in water just beyond that “line in the dsand” you are fired. Think this is just a little fable by a wild-eyed liberal who hates capitalism? Au contraire, mon ami. Here is the story on CNN about this very same lifeguard.
Tomas Lopez says he never thought getting fired would make him so popular.
Since he was terminated as a lifeguard Monday for disregarding a protected area to save a swimmer, the 21-year-old from Florida said his phone has been ringing off the hook with journalists trying to get his side of the story. He is set to make an appearance on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” Thursday night. […]
Orlando-based Jeff Ellis and Associates, the company Lopez worked for, said lifeguards cannot go beyond the perimeter of the beach they are responsible for overseeing. […]
But that day, a beachgoer rushed to Lopez’s lifeguard station to alert him to a man who was drowning.
The man was some 1,500 feet outside the company’s protection zone in an area where signs warn visitors to swim at their own risk, a supervisor with the company told CNN affiliate WPTV. […]
After the near-drowning, Lopez said he was asked by his supervisor to complete an incident report.
“At that point I knew I was going to be fired. I knew had broken the rule,” Lopez said. “In those cases, we are supposed to call 911 and hope they get there in time.”
Yes, well a company can’t have its employees violating important rules about their designated area just to save someone’s life, now can we. That would be –well — intolerable, wouldn’t it?
He’s the wrong kind of risk taker. He saved someone. The good risk takers go into derivatives.
Sound business practice. If swimmers in a ‘Swim at your own risk’ area drown, this extends the potential market for Jeff Ellis and Associates’ product to that patch of beach. And why should that patch of beach receive the services of Jeff Ellis and Associates without Jeff Ellis and Associates being compensated in any way.
That which is, is, because it can be bought and sold. And that which cannot be bought and sold, is not.
I don’t know about the law in Florida, but in Texas a certified lifeguard is required by law to give assistance to any swimmer in distress he or she may encounter. Anywhere.
.
Link has changed, including a new headline in CNN story. Three more lifeguards were also fired for being solidair and four others quit. A former mayor has come forward to urge the city to cancel the contract with the private company or at least not renew the outsourcing to safeguard the beaches.
Fired Hallandale Beach lifeguard can be rehired, boss says
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."While I obviously agree with the point being made – outsourcing lifeguard duties is bad for the public – there may be a legitimate reason for the company’s rule. My guess is that their liability insurance only covers a specified area, and any activity by the company or its agents (i.e. lifeguards) would not be covered. So, say the man that was saved ends up dying and his family sues the lifeguard and the company, and for the sake of argument let’s say that they win. The company would not be covered by their insurance policy and would have to bear the brunt of the lawsuit.
Insurable risk – it’s the only thing I can think of where it would make sense for a company to act in this fashion.
Of course it is always a bad idea to bet against stupid.
Or evil.
Yeah, but is anyone going to sue the lifeguard if he tried to help and the guy drowned? It would get thrown out of court, probably. As it is, this company basically has now sunk it’s own boat by being so stupid.
No, but someone would sue the lifeguard and his employer, and win a very big compensation, if someone in the protected area happened to drown while he was saving someone outside of the protected area.
I’ve heard of a few fire depts. where the firefighters were ordered to observe strict boundaries. Glad none of the fire depts. I worked for were like that. We had formal mutual aid agreements with all the surrounding depts. so we could help one another when the big ones came along. Also, we got the state to address the insurance problems mentioned above to minimize issues in that area. In a civil society, crap like this would be unheard of.
In a civil society, volunteer subscription fire departments wouldn’t exist … they would be funded by the civil society.
In many rural communities today, the situation of the subscription fire department is dire and made worse by literal freeloaders who expect the service but deny payment when asked. The units that work under this constraint are required to save lives. They are also required to let the house burn down.
Damn freeloaders.
Had he thrown an anchor instead, he’ probably gotten himself promoted.