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.

I Wear Pants;1219591 wrote:Yeah, and what happens next time he is life guarding someplace and there's a person 2 ft outside of his territory who drowns? Can't go help that guy, he's outside of the line his boss drew and he'll get fired and lambasted by people like SVF for having the audacity to try to save a life.

Great life lessons we're teaching this kid here.

O-Trap;1219592 wrote:I didn't say don't go help him. Remember, I said it was the good thing to do.

Too, unless he's on some sort of end-cap, there will be a lifeguard who will be responsible for helping there.

I Wear Pants;1219597 wrote:Right you did. It sounds as if he was an end-cap or something like that. Or at least that was my understanding of the story.

hoops23;1219633 wrote:Let's let a guy die.

Great publicity.

O-Trap;1219635 wrote:I don't think the discussion has been what the lifeguard should have done.

Moreover, morality is not correlated to publicity inherently.

hoops23;1219637 wrote:It all correlates to what the lifeguard did, so indirectly, the discussion involves what the lifeguard decided to do.

Point is, what if this person who was near death wasn't mentally right? What if they weren't all there and weren't aware of what they were doing? I don't know much about the person and I doubt this to be the case, but in a split second decision, what do you expect a caring human being to do? How horrifying would it have been to witness the death of another individual knowing you could have done something about it?

Point being, the fact that this is even a discussion really shows that moral virtues in this country alone are dwindling. Public Companies only care about their bottom line, and less about everything else... Including most employees.

I Wear Pants;1219639 wrote:FTFY

O-Trap;1219635 wrote:I don't think the discussion has been what the lifeguard should have done.

Moreover, morality is not correlated to publicity inherently.

hoops23;1219637 wrote:It all correlates to what the lifeguard did, so indirectly, the discussion involves what the lifeguard decided to do.

hoops23;1219637 wrote: Point is, what if this person who was near death wasn't mentally right? What if they weren't all there and weren't aware of what they were doing? I don't know much about the person and I doubt this to be the case, but in a split second decision, what do you expect a caring human being to do?

hoops23;1219637 wrote:How horrifying would it have been to witness the death of another individual knowing you could have done something about it?

hoops23;1219637 wrote: Point being, the fact that this is even a discussion really shows that moral virtues in this country alone are dwindling. Companies only care about their bottom line, and less about everything else... Including most employees.

I Wear Pants;1219641 wrote:It's what the company should have done that we're talking about. And the company shouldn't have fired them if they were attempting to do the right thing. But they weren't.

O-Trap;1219644 wrote:Why is it inherently the right thing to turn a blind eye?

If I steal to feed the hungry, I've done a good thing ... one could make the claim that it was the right thing to do, as it saved the lives of starving people ... but does that mean that the stealing is forgiven?

He should have gone out. They should enforce the known consequences for actions. That's fair. It sucks, but just because it sucks doesn't make it wrong.

I Wear Pants;1219647 wrote:Disagree. Stealing robs someone of something they bought or earned. This is nothing like that.

O-Trap;1219648 wrote:One could say he risked the safety of those in his charge. Could've also been seen as risking the ssecurity of the jobs of his peers if something had gone wrong and the man sued, which is hardly unheard of.

Overall, he did the best thing, but he still broke the rules in the process. Insert any crime committed for a good cause. Hell, even a victimless one. I shouldn't be aghast or outraged when I do have to pay for the laws I did break, even if my overall goal was good and noble.

sleeper;1219651 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. It's impossible for a black man to keep a job today even if he saves his white brethren.

sleeper;1219651 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. It's impossible for a black man to keep a job today even if he saves his white brethren.

Curly J;1219653 wrote:Race shouldn't matter, but would you fire your fry cook if he left his station and saved a choking patron by performing the Heimlich maneuver?

I Wear Pants;1219650 wrote:
If I jaywalk to save an old lady or dog or something from traffic could I still get a ticket for it? Sure. Would the cop be legally correct? Sure. Would he be a douche if he gave me a ticket in that situation? Absolutely.

O-Trap;1219648 wrote:One could say he risked the safety of those in his charge. Could've also been seen as risking the ssecurity of the jobs of his peers if something had gone wrong and the man sued, which is hardly unheard of.

Overall, he did the best thing, but he still broke the rules in the process. Insert any crime committed for a good cause. Hell, even a victimless one. I shouldn't be aghast or outraged when I do have to pay for the laws I did break, even if my overall goal was good and noble.

se-alum;1219691 wrote:How can you liken this situation to a crime? He broke no laws. It's obvious the company knew they did the wrong thing, which is why they offered him his job back.

Steel Valley Football;1219169 wrote:So here we go again. You want an exception to be made, which sets a precedent and can be upheld in court...which is why the company has the rule in the first place. If they make an exception now then they must allow it in the future, which negates the policy altogether.

Glory Days;1219674 wrote:what if in the course of jaywalking you cause an accident?