Why did a con fire a lifeguard because he was trying to save somebody outside his zone?

[heidegger_001]

A Florida lifeguard has been booted from his lifeguard chair for running to save a man who was floundering in the surf.

Tomas Lopez , 21, was fired by his supervisor for vacating his lifeguarding zone to save a man drowning in an unprotected area of the beach in Hallandale Beach, Fla., on Monday, reports the Sun Sentinel.

Lopez' employer is not paid to patrol the zone where the man had been in trouble.

According to the Sun Sentinel, Lopez was approached by a beachgoer who pointed out a man struggling in the water nearly 1,500 feet south of his post.

Instinctively, he ran down the beach to save him. By the time Lopez got to him, he had been pulled to shore by fellow beachgoers.

Following his rescue attempt, Lopez was let go for leaving the area he was supposed to be covering.

Jeff Ellis and Associates, a private aquatic safety contractor, is hired by the city to patrol the beaches. The company is also in charge of hiring and training the city's lifeguards.

Susan Ellis, spokeswoman for Jeff Ellis and Associates, told the Sun Sentinel that Lopez broke company rules when he left his zone, and cited "liability issues" that may have occurred as a result of Lopez leaving his designated area.

Ellis could not be reached for further comment.

Some of Lopez's friends rallied for him on his Facebook page where he had posted the Sun Sentinel's article.

"thats messed up but im proud of you for standing up like that and doing whats right. Tomas Lopez = Hero!!" one commenter wrote.

Tom Gill, spokesman for the United States Lifesaving Association, said Lopez's firing came across as a little harsh.

"It seems unfortunate that a guard would do what he's trained to do and be fired for it," he said.

Gill said that the boundaries set by Jeff Ellis and Associates were most likely set by the city of Hallandale Beach in a private contract.

"Usually when the municipalities hire someone to [lifeguard], those organizations are not only taking on the responsibility of the job, but a lot of the liability," he said.

USLA is recognized as the authority on open water lifesaving by the Red Cross, and certifies agencies and associations around the country based on their training.

Gill said Jeff Ellis and Associates has not applied for certification with USLA, and so he could not speak on the company's regulations or training.

"As far as being fired for going outside the zone, I couldn't tell you how they could make that justification," he said.
The guy he was trying to save was drowning, cons. I hope you guys feel happy now.

[LiberalsRNutz]

Sounds more like union rules gone wild to me.

BTW you didn't even prove he was a conservative.

[Brian B]

A:There is no justification for believe the employer in this case was a Con.
B: There is likely more to this relatively unimportant story.

[Shovel Ready]

There are numerous other examples of public safety officials being disciplined for leaving their posts. This is not unusual.

[ahandle101]

I didn't see any reference to the employer's political beliefs. Maybe the employer was just worried about getting sued by some liberal lawyer.

[John Hinkle]

WTF? No where in your cut and paste does it say a thing about anyone being a con or a lib or anything else. Personally I suspect the company was liberal owned since it was milking a government contract (with out proper certifications no less) and fired the guy. If it had been a Conservative run company he would be getting an award as we speak.

[brucec83]

Who cares about his employer's politics? This is just a typical example of what happens when you "privatize" public services.

Millions of Americans are wrongfully dismissed every day because of our "at will" employment laws. Many are typically wrongfully accused of misconduct, so the employer does not have his unemployment compensation tax increased. Yet wrongful and unfair dismissal has been illegal in most of Europe for almost 50 years and there are special employment courts to prevent it and compensate the victims.

Life Guarding is not supposed to be profitable, it is supposed to save lives. Many cities afford civil service protections to life guards, and some are even trained and sworn in as peace officers. Civil Service was created thousands of years ago for the specific purpose of assuring that public employees, especially those engaged in essential services, like lifeguard or police, are only concerned with service to the public and are not subject to the desire to profit from every action or to political influence and corruption. From ACORN to BLACKWATER, when public services are privatized, scandals follow.

[Di]

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.

[halfstone]

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]

OK, libby, where does anyone's political affiliation appear in this story? I only see it in your question. You're a MORON.