Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Lifeguard fired for trying to save life
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 3:08 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219178 wrote:If the company kept this guy employed and then fired the next guy who did it, yes it most certainly is. The next guy could sue the company to get his job back. Then the policy is pretty much negated, yes, as there would be no enforcement. Without the policy in place, the company would not get insurance coverage.
As FatHobbit said, usually not the case.

They can have the policy in place but there's nothing wrong with using discretion when dealing out punishment. We aren't saying the policy is bad, but that these guys acted on it in the wrong way and there's really no arguing that. They fired a lifeguard because he tried to save someone's life.
Jul 5, 2012 3:08pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 3:15 PM
No, insurance is why the policies are in place, guys. Regardless.
Jul 5, 2012 3:15pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jul 5, 2012 3:19 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219178 wrote:If the company kept this guy employed and then fired the next guy who did it, yes it most certainly is. The next guy could sue the company to get his job back. Then the policy is pretty much negated, yes, as there would be no enforcement. Without the policy in place, the company would not get insurance coverage.
Why would they keep one guy, and fire another guy for doing the exact same thing. The precedent isn't set for breaking the policy, the precedent would be set for how the policy was broken. A guy saving a life, and a guy that just leaves his post to talk to friends or do something else, is not the same situation.
Jul 5, 2012 3:19pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 4:19 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219189 wrote:No, insurance is why the policies are in place, guys. Regardless.
No one said they weren't. But you can distinguish in court why you fired someone for going to chat with a girl out of his area vs why you didn't for this guy for attempting to save a life out of his area.

Those are not the same situations and you'd be able to show as much in court.

Your insurance argument is bunk. These guys made the wrong call.
Jul 5, 2012 4:19pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 4:25 PM
se-alum;1219193 wrote:Why would they keep one guy, and fire another guy for doing the exact same thing. The precedent isn't set for breaking the policy, the precedent would be set for how the policy was broken. A guy saving a life, and a guy that just leaves his post to talk to friends or do something else, is not the same situation.
No, but you're dealing in extremes here, so the question comes: Where, in between these two, does one draw the line?

Is going elsewhere to check on a wader in knee-high water, but who looks nervous, enough of a reason? What about someone who finds something strange washed up on shore? Between the two extremes, should we just keep the lifeguards guessing? Does your opinion change if someone dies or is injured in the area the lifeguard was supposed to be watching during that time?
Jul 5, 2012 4:25pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 4:46 PM
O-Trap;1219227 wrote:No, but you're dealing in extremes here, so the question comes: Where, in between these two, does one draw the line?

Is going elsewhere to check on a wader in knee-high water, but who looks nervous, enough of a reason? What about someone who finds something strange washed up on shore? Between the two extremes, should we just keep the lifeguards guessing? Does your opinion change if someone dies or is injured in the area the lifeguard was supposed to be watching during that time?
It becomes a different situation then yes. But that's not what happened here.
Jul 5, 2012 4:46pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jul 5, 2012 4:49 PM
FatHobbit;1219181 wrote:At least in Ohio, employment is at will. If you are not in a protected class you can be fired for no reason at all. So the next guy can't sue because they didn't fire one person, but did fire someone else.
Thank you, this happens to be the law in 49 states and sometimes in the 50th (Montana). Additionally, any sort of policy handbook/document will usually disclaim that the document does not constitute a contractual agreement, and that said policies can be implemented, changed, or ignored at the sole discretion of the company. Courts (with a few exceptions) have held that such policies are not binding.

Bottom line is that firing the guy can be argued as a smart/dumb business matter, but the company would be on solid legal ground either way.
Jul 5, 2012 4:49pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 4:51 PM
I Wear Pants;1219246 wrote:It becomes a different situation then yes. But that's not what happened here.
Why does your opinion change, then? He was no more or less responsible, was he?

He rolled the dice and won this time, but if he rolls the dice and loses next time, what of HIS actions change? None. He's being no more or less responsible, whether or not somebody he was obligated to protect dies.
Jul 5, 2012 4:51pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 5:41 PM
I Wear Pants;1219225 wrote:No one said they weren't. But you can distinguish in court why you fired someone for going to chat with a girl out of his area vs why you didn't for this guy for attempting to save a life out of his area.

Those are not the same situations and you'd be able to show as much in court.

Your insurance argument is bunk. These guys made the wrong call.
It's not my argument. It's why the policy is in place.

They made the logical call. Unlike your emotional one.
Jul 5, 2012 5:41pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:12 PM
If I were the lifeguard, I would have done the same damn thing. This person will probably be rewarded one way or another.
Jul 5, 2012 6:12pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:17 PM
O-Trap;1219250 wrote:Why does your opinion change, then? He was no more or less responsible, was he?

He rolled the dice and won this time, but if he rolls the dice and loses next time, what of HIS actions change? None. He's being no more or less responsible, whether or not somebody he was obligated to protect dies.
I don't think he rolled the dice. I'm assuming he used his training to notice that there did not appear to be anyone in danger in his area and went to assist a man nearby who was in danger.
Jul 5, 2012 6:17pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:18 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219268 wrote:It's not my argument. It's why the policy is in place.

They made the logical call. Unlike your emotional one.
Logic says not to fire this guy. From a business standpoint and from thinking what he deserves. So many companies use your brand of logic to rationalize doing the wrong thing and it almost always ends up harming their brand far more than it could potentially help it.
Jul 5, 2012 6:18pm
Curly J's avatar

Curly J

Self Pwner in Training.

7,282 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:21 PM
hoops23;1219286 wrote:If I were the lifeguard, I would have done the same damn thing. This person will probably be rewarded one way or another.
Like being offered his job back ???--> http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/us/florida-lifeguard-fired/index.html?iref=obnetwork
Jul 5, 2012 6:21pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:42 PM
Yeah I'm sure that would be a great environment to work in. The douchebags that fired you who then caved to public pressure to hire you back will surely treat your excellently. :rolleyes:
Jul 5, 2012 6:42pm
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
Jul 5, 2012 6:51 PM
hoops23;1219302 wrote:Fuck that.
No shit. What a joke.
Jul 5, 2012 6:51pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 8:12 PM
I Wear Pants;1219292 wrote:Logic says not to fire this guy. From a business standpoint and from thinking what he deserves. So many companies use your brand of logic to rationalize doing the wrong thing and it almost always ends up harming their brand far more than it could potentially help it.

Lol there is no brand name to be concerned with. I can tell you've been in a business class recently ha ha.
Jul 5, 2012 8:12pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 5, 2012 9:57 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219378 wrote:Lol there is no brand name to be concerned with. I can tell you've been in a business class recently ha ha.
Go fondle yourself, black.
Jul 5, 2012 9:57pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 10:25 PM
I Wear Pants;1219312 wrote:Yeah I'm sure that would be a great environment to work in. The douchebags that fired you who then caved to public pressure to hire you back will surely treat your excellently. :rolleyes:
Actually, given their fear of public opinion, and given his apparent clout, I bet they're walking on eggshells with him around.
Jul 5, 2012 10:25pm
hasbeen's avatar

hasbeen

Excuse me, Flo?

6,504 posts
Jul 5, 2012 10:31 PM
I Wear Pants;1219291 wrote:I don't think he rolled the dice. I'm assuming he used his training to notice that there did not appear to be anyone in danger in his area and went to assist a man nearby who was in danger.
You're always in danger while in the water. Which is why there are lifeguards.
Jul 5, 2012 10:31pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 10:35 PM
I Wear Pants;1219291 wrote:I don't think he rolled the dice. I'm assuming he used his training to notice that there did not appear to be anyone in danger in his area and went to assist a man nearby who was in danger.
Could be. I'm personally not thinking it's the most responsible thing to trust a 21-year-old to make a responsible assessment every time.
Jul 5, 2012 10:35pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 5, 2012 10:40 PM
O-Trap;1219466 wrote:Could be. I'm personally not thinking it's the most responsible thing to trust a 21-year-old to make a responsible assessment every time.
Go Find yourself, red.

I don't think any age group can be expected to make a responsible assessment every time.

That's why we're humans and not mythological creatures.
Jul 5, 2012 10:40pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 10:42 PM
hoops23;1219483 wrote:Go Find yourself, red.

I don't think any age group can be expected to make a responsible assessment every time.

That's why we're humans and not mythological creatures.
Sure, but I'd contend the likelihood goes up with the maturation of the individual.
Jul 5, 2012 10:42pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 5, 2012 11:48 PM
O-Trap;1219446 wrote:Actually, given their fear of public opinion, and given his apparent clout, I bet they're walking on eggshells with him around.
Either way they'd resent him and it'd be a terribly uncomfortable place to work.
Jul 5, 2012 11:48pm