se-alum;1218976 wrote:It's completely unfair of the company to put an employee in that position. What if he stands there and watches the guy drown? That could completely screw him up for the rest of his life.
There are a lot of things about people's jobs that could screw them up for life. The company's job isn't to handle that "what-if." It's to create an organized way to ensure the safety of swimmers. This young man did a good thing, but relinquished his responsibility for the safety of others.
If something had genuinely gone wrong while he was away from his post, and the lifeguards standing in for him aren't able to prevent some horrible injury or even death, whose responsibility is it? It's the responsibility of the person to whom said responsibility was given by the employer. The employer entrusted the lifeguard with the safety of those in a particular area, and he left that charge. Doesn't matter that he had someone fill in or that he was doing the right thing if something goes wrong with one of the people for whom he was responsible.
se-alum;1218976 wrote:What is better publicity for the company, one of their employees helps a drowning man when he didn't have to or company's lifeguard watches man drown due to company policy.
I don't think the publicity matters, as we deal with an issue of right and wrong.
se-alum;1218976 wrote:It's a terrible policy on the company's part, on many levels.
It's in place to protect the many that frequent the beach. Breaking a rule to do a good deed doesn't unbreak the rule. Where is it written that you should get a free pass for breaking rules as long as it is "to do the right thing?"
