+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: Facebook forums (/forum-14.html)
+--- Forum: Facebook Marketing (/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Why did a con fire a lifeguard because he was trying to save somebody outside his zone? (/thread-46090.html)
Pages: 1 2
- Di - 11-27-2012 06:47 AM
I think the problem was, by Mr. Lopez leaving his station and the zone his employer was paid to protect, the view is that he was not available to protect beachgoers in the specific area under contract.
The firing was harsh and needs to be rethought as he was being humanitarian. Of course, had a tragedy occured while he was saving a life outside the zone, it would apparently be the fault of cons.
It's one of those no win situations I guess.
- rwb13 - 11-27-2012 06:47 AM
you offer no proof or your claim other than the fact that you jumped to your own conclusion and formed your own opinion. typical!!
- halfstone - 11-27-2012 06:47 AM
First of all, you are twisting some important political facts here - you may disagree with Republicans and hate cons, you may blame a lot of things on cons and you may be accurate - but it doesn't mean that everything bad is because of conservative politics.
In the article you cite (did you read it?) it says "The boundaries set by Jeff Ellis and Associates were most likely set by the city of Hallandale Beach in a private contract."
If you had taken a closer look, you'd see that the city of Hallandale Beach is run by a Democrat administration, led by Mayor Joy Cooper, a Democrat.
The issue here is not political - it is not "Republican vs Democrat", it is a matter of liability and responsibility. I'm not saying it's right, mind you - but unless this lifeguard took steps to make sure that the area he was contracted to protect was adequately covered, he was leaving his post and subjecting the city to a huge liability.
I was a lifeguard at a National Seashore for over ten years. We were contracted to guard specific areas of a ten-mile stretch of beach. Unguarded areas were clearly marked, and bathers were warned that to swim there was at their own risk. We could not effectively watch those areas without spreading ourselves too thin, but we had an obligation to maintain our posts in order to fulfill our obligation to the patrons who read the signs. Of course, we were compassionate and our first priority was to save lives - so we figured out a way to make sure our own posts were covered in the event of an emergency like this - but we did this at our own personal risk, just like the guy in your story.
At one point, we noticed a lot of people swimming in an unguarded area where there was a seasonal rip-tide. Knowing the danger, and also seeing that the bathers completely ignored prominently displayed "Swim At Your Own Risk" signs, we posted a guard there to protect the swimmers. We were "caught" - told by the National Park Service to remove that guard, and that we would not be able to guard that area until we could provide an "incident report" proving the danger.
"By 'Incident Report' you mean 'drowning'?" we asked?
"Yes" was the answer. This is a bureaucracy in action - it is YOUR federal government - and in the case of Hallandale Beach it is the local government. Unfortunately, they do not have the budget to cover all areas of the beach, and they have to do the best they can do in the area they are contracted to protect.
Incidentally, and only in response to your knee-jerk "con" argument - this was the National Park Service under the Carter administration in the late 1970's.
All of that said - I think it's wrong that the lifeguard should be punished for this. I think a closer look should be taken at the signage and warnings to people bathing in the unguarded areas; access to that area of the beach should be restricted or at the very least inconvenient to get to, and a harder look should be taken at the city budget - and to consider guarding those areas.
When addressing those issues, of course, there are political and economic realities at hand. How do you do it? Do you cut another service? Do you raise taxes? Do you shorten the swimming season?
It's a much more complex issue than you think - but the one thing it is NOT is "cons".
- out2lunch4now2 - 11-27-2012 06:47 AM
OK, libby, where does anyone's political affiliation appear in this story? I only see it in your question. You're a MORON.