Lifeguard fired for saving a man's life.

[Bvenged]

Thomas Lopez, a Florida lifeguard, was out on patrol when a member of the public told him that a swimmer was in trouble. The swimmer was just outside of Lopez's guarding area. Since two other lifeguards were covering the stretch of the beach he was already on, he ran out of his allocated zone to aid the swimmer in need, just as he was pulled to shore, along with an off-duty nurse until paramedics arrived.


He got fired for leaving his post.


Lopez has no regrets about aiding the rescue of a man that resulted in losing his job, in fact his co-workers called up the manager, got him to cover the area and promptly resigned as well.

Personally, I think the company should think twice about firing someone for saving a life. Their claims are that he put others at risk by leaving the protected zone, but I think that's nonsense. A life is a life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18715684
[hr]
Edit: More information from *gulp* the Daily Mail. It's seems quite factual though.

[Paraphrased]
The man in trouble was swimming in an area next to a sign that says "Swim at your own risk", nearly a mile down the beach from Thomas's post. Thomas defends that "he was just doing the job he was trained to do" and "It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn't going to say no".

Apparently: "He was semi conscious and had water on his lungs, so Lopez attended to him until paramedics arrived".

Lopez's boss then asked him to fill out an incident report - before promptly firing him for stepping outside his designated area.

"They didn't tell me in a bad way," Lopez said. "It was more like they were sorry, but rules are rules. I couldn't believe what was happening.
"I ran out to do the job I was trained to do. I didn't think about it at all."
Lopez has been a lifeguard for four months, after passing swimming and physical exams.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168667/Lifeguard-fired-running-rescue-drowning-man--stepped-outside-zone-it.html#ixzz1zjwk3pmG
[hr]

What are your thoughts?

 

[Bertylicious]

It's very easy to leap to conclusions with stuff like this. They can't imagine that they would have sacked the guy on a whim. That rule about the post must exist for a reason. Now that line of yours:

"He got fired for leaving his post."

Is little more than a call to arms. It gives no information. What process was followed? Was there a hearing? Does Mr. Lopez have a disciplinary history of ignoring the rules in the 4 months he has been there?

When you discipline someone, you do it based on what they have done rather than the outcome. We had a fellow at a factory put his hand into moving machinery. He was very lucky and only lost the tip of his finger rather than his whole hand. Even though he was injured, he was still disciplined because what he did was fucking stupid and a massive breach of procedures put in place to keep people safe.

There are also legitimate questions about insurance regulations. Presumably, the organisaton that employed Mr. Lopez is required to follow quite strict rules in order to be insured and even to operate. They may have felt, perhaps even said in the hearing, that they regretted having to take the action but where required to be law/the boundaries of their insurance policy.

Basically, leaping to conclusions is for fassys. Don't do it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pft, he shouldn't have left his allocated area, what if someone got into trouble? They could have drowned because there was no lifeguard...oh.

Ah, from reading the article it looks like a liability thing, so they had to fire him...I think.

 

[Bvenged]

Basically, leaping to conclusions is for fassys. Don't do it.

I was just summarising the BBC's article, and from the information available would his co-workers resign in protest for a guy with a bad history?

You can't sidestep the moral implications this story generates either, he stepped out of his way to save a life. that's his job description and morally right thing to do. If you're a road worker and a crash happens right before you, do you just say "sod it, I've got a road to tarmac and I don't have a good reputation with my employers" or do you run over and help?

 

[Bertylicious]

Basically, leaping to conclusions is for fassys. Don't do it.

I was just summarising the BBC's article, and from the information available would his co-workers resign in protest for a guy with a bad history?

You can't sidestep the moral implications this story generates either, he stepped out of his way to save a life. that's his job description and morally right thing to do. If you're a road worker and a crash happens right before you, do you just say "sod it, I've got a road to tarmac and I don't have a good reputation with my employers" or do you run over and help?

Aight, I hear what you're saying and I appreciate that it is well appealling from an armchair perspective but in the real world the obvious approach doesn't always prove to be the best. Im mean; common sense dictates that the world is flat.

There could be all sorts of reasons that what he did was wrong. Perhaps it wasn't what he did but the manner in which he did it; perhaps he should have notified the emergency services, as the 2 fellows responsible for that section did, before bowling in himself. Maybe they've learned through hard, tragic, experience that no lifeguard should attempt a rescue alone.

Then again maybe the employers are in the wrong. Perhaps they have constructed this situation to avoid paying redundancy, but this happened in America and people don't have rights there (nor would they here at only 4 months) so there would be no need. It just seems unlikely to me, why would they bother?

As for the other 2 bods, well... Maybe they just leapt to conclusions without the facts and/or where already unhappy (the money seems pretty shit, that's for sure) so wanted to leave anyway.

The thing is that we just don't know. Knee jerk reactions are bad.

 

[Nerexor]

Bertylicious: I get what you're saying in that we often don't know the whole story from a news report like this, but his fellow co-workers who presumably do have the inside track, resigned in protest of this action. Also, the second linked article clearly states that other lifeguards were on duty in that section of the beach. It's not like the guy abandoned his area and left his zone unmanned. All it meant was that there were only two lifeguards there instead of three. He ran over to help a guy who both articles agree was clearly drowning, he had water in his lungs and needed rescue and care. Both of those are clearly within the purview of his job. So yeah, he ran across the imaginary line his employers had drawn in the sand to do it, and granted he went pretty far across that line (1500 feet apparently, not sure what that adds up to in real units like meters, but I gather it's pretty far). He embraced the moral principles of his job rather than adhering to the absolute letter of what his bosses told him to. Most employers would call that going above and beyond, or in his case quite literally going the extra mile. These jerkwads fired him on the spot.

Secondly he was asked for help. His company thinks a bit of potential liability is bad? How bad would it look on them if someone runs up to this lifeguard and asks him to help a drowning man and he says "Nope, company policy says I can't help him because he's outside my zone."

Third: Calling the authorities is all well and good, and it was good that his fellow lifeguards did, but it takes time for them to arrive and its quite possible the guy could have drowned in the mean time. That's why we have lifeguards on the spot at beaches in the first place, so they can respond immediately to incidents just like this.

Long story short: His employers are bad and they should feel bad. Following a ridiculously inflexible policy is a sign of a lack of good judgment on their part and they deserve every bit of shame they are getting heaped on them in the media.

 

[bafrali]

This is why we can't have nice things like heroes saving a life without having to worry about bosses with no spines

 

[Dags90]

Liability issues again? Muricans, when are you going to radically reform your civil law system to avoid this kind of sillyness?

Eh. If the language of the OP is correct it looks like the lifeguard didn't actually do any life saving, notably "Since two other lifeguards were covering the stretch of the beach he was already on, he ran out of his allocated zone to aid the swimmer in need, just as he was pulled to shore, along with an off-duty nurse until paramedics arrived." So the guy was already not in immediate drowning danger by the time the lifeguard had run the mile.

So I think the title is a bit of an outright lie. Unless this is just poor language, it clearly suggests that the lifeguard got there just after the man was pulled from the water and was being helped by an off-duty nurse.

 

[Scarim Coral]

So the company would of been fine if they were under controversial for having one of their lifeguards letting a person drown for simply obeying the company rule?

Either way I think their should rethink their policy rules and I applaud the lifeguard selfless action to save that guy life (since you only get one life afterall) over his job rules.

 

[Loonyyy]

-Paid to do job.
-Leaves job without authorisation.
-Gets fired.

He did end up doing something which was not part of his job (His job description is not life-saving, that's ridiculous. It's to patrol and perform surf-lifesaving activities on a section of beach), so he was disciplined for it. The discipline was harsh, but I for one, have no idea about how they usually treat people for leaving their posts, so I can't really compare it. He did stuff up, and his employers are well within their rights to discipline him.

Whether he's also a legend or hero for what he did (There's really not enough information here, and what little there is conflicts between the sections of the articles), is another point entirely, and one which would might need to be taken into account when deciding what his punishment would be.

But seriously "Man saves life, gets fired for it." is entirely misleading. "Man leaves job involving protecting certain lives, gets fired." would be more accurate.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Just to update the story...

The lifeguard was offered his job back, he refused in favor of going back to school.

 

[Pandabearparade]

The man saved a life -and- sacrificed his job to do it.

That's a hero, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Just another example of people just not thinking about situations critically. I mean, you're sitting there, you 'have' to fire the kid because he left his post... exactly what prevents you from just shrugging and saying "Ehhhh, I didn't see it."

 

[WanderingFool]

Short answer, stupid as fuck.

Long answer, maybe he did leave his area, but the guy was drowning, he is a lifeguard, the fuck was he suppose to do? Let him drown?

 

[Zen Toombs]

OP

*reads post*

*reads linked article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18715684]*

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this is dumb.