Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Out After Admitting They'd Save Man Outside Zone

[malaise]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fired-florida-lifeguards-coworkers-exit/story?id=16711655#.T_Tu3PWFTIU
<snip>
Six Florida lifeguards have lost their jobs for backing a coworker's decision to save a man struggling in the surf but outside their jurisdiction.

Tomas Lopez , 21, was fired Monday for vacating his lifeguarding zone to save a man drowning in unprotected waters 1,500 feet south of his post on Hallandale Beach, Fla.

"I knew I broke the rules," said Lopez, who ran past the buoy marking the boundary of his patrol zone to help the man. "I told the manager, I'm fired aren't I?"

Lopez said he jumped into the water and "I double underhooked him…I was worried about the guy and his health. He was blue."

Six of Lopez's coworkers said they would have done the same thing. And now, they've been fired too.
----------------------
Bravo coworkers!!

[SoutherDem]

1. Insanity of insanities!

I know there were "legal" issue or something, but my goodness they saved a man's life.

[GodlessBiker]

10. What you said, times 17,000.

[roguevalley]

28. Florida, I am speechless.

[lostnote12]

2. "No good deed goes un-punished"......welcome to the machine young man,you and

.... your friends are the working persons hero

[xtraxritical]

60. Is Florida in the twighlight zone? Bermuda Triangle? WTF?

[pipoman]

3. People motivated to save lives,

as might be expected of someone pursuing the profession of 'lifeguard' shouldn't be expected to stand 50 feet away and watch someone die because of a colored buoy..unreasonable expectations, unethical conditions, unconscionable results..hope the guy is recruited by an employer who has a conscience..

[mike dub]

59. The idiots who fired these lifeguards had better get busy and invent the LifeGuardBot-4000...

...because anyone they hire to replace these lifeguards would go right out there and do the exact same thing. I think it's human instinct to help others, especially when the sh*t hits the fan- --- f the f'in buoys.

Boy, does big corporate really just want a totally robo-brained/compliant workforce, or what? I guess no one's supposed to use common sense anymore. Saving a struggling swimmer from drowning, even outside the limits, seems like common-sense to me.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I am not allowed to say the things I wish to say

[Systematic Chaos]

7. I seem to have that happen a good dozen times or more every friggin' day on this site.

But I still stand by my offer to help hose the blood off the sidewalks and out of the gutters when justice is finally served!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

13. I've been in construction for most of my life.

I'll be happy to build the guillotines that cause the blood on the sidewalks if you will wash it off. A community working together for the greater good.

[Angry Dragon]

17. I truly love your French Solution

[OffWithTheirHeads]

23. Liberté, égalité, fraternité

[LiberalFighter]

51. Personally, I think guillotine of the other head would be more effective.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Welcome to libertarian privatization

non-union hell. And with the proliferation of privatization of formerly public functions, this kind of shit is only gonna get more and more common.

I guess the kid was just supposed to let the drowning guy die, THE RULZ and private profits are far more important.

[Booster]

14. This will happen to firefighters who save someone's beloved pet if Romney is President and

privatizes the police and firefighters. Not in their job description. This is just stupid. This young man's boss should be damn proud of him.

[progressivebydesign]

25. Bingo!!! More privatization bullshit. n/t

[HiPointDem]

29. +1. destroys community & human values.

[DirkGently]

87. Absolutely. Life saving and profit motive don't mix.

The problem sounds like it was that the lifeguard company was contracted to only protect a certain part of the beach; therefore any "saves" outside of that area would expose the company to liability both for any "botching" of the save, and for anyone not saved while the chair was empty.

Perfect corporate logic. Which would have let someone die needlessly in this case.

[madashelltoo]

6. Why are we hearing this kind of madness more and more lately?

People do extraordinary deeds and they are punished. I think some folks would love to let people drown, burn, and be buried in rubble. They make stupid remarks about wounded vets and denying coverage to people who need it. What the fuck is going on around here? This shit is ridiculous. That boss better hope his next calamity falls within the parameters of the fucking rules.

[TrogL]

8. It's been going on all along

We just hear about it more

[newthinking]

9. related of course to saving insurance costs

It's amazing how businesses and governments absorb liabilities all the time as "a cost of doing business". Is it really impossible to distinguish between an act done for the greater good vs a liability related to actual malfeasance or negligence? Couldn't there have been a lawsuit if the person could have been saved by staff who are there for the purpose if they had declined to take the risk? Does modern life have to have these contridictions?

[nobodyspecial]

11. I hope they all have better job offers very soon

They are the type of workers any business should be proud to have

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Let this be the beginning of a movement.

Where people begin to do the things for the right reason.

[47of74]

15. And since this is Florida with the GOP in charge...

...don't look for Governor Fuckface McVotersupression or the GOP drones in the legislature to do anything to put a stop to that kind of horseshit.

[mike dub]

63. Couldn't have said it better myself...

Nicely-phrased, 47of74.

[Pilotguy]

16. Maybe we should voice our displeasure with the management company...

http://www.jeffellismanagement.com/

http://www.jeffellismanagement.com/contact-us

[HiPointDem]

31. +1. They're a globo-corp. Which means big capital.

For over 25 years, Jeff Ellis Management has earned a worldwide industry reputation as the global leader for aquatic safety...Jeff Ellis Management lifeguards protect millions of swimmers throughout the world and are credited with saving countless lives.

http://www.jeffellismanagement.com/about-us

Per their website, 80% of the country's waterparks are clients.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone like bain capital was the real owner.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Why is one company controlling 80% of the industry?

Why should Jeff Ellis Management get the credit for saving lives when it is the (usually temporary) employees that do the saving.

[malaise]

79. Great idea

Imagine hiring the working class and then telling them you can't save any of your own people - leave them to drown.

[jerseyjack]

18. Lifeguards don't make much money. How can we set up a fund

like the one for the bus driver?

[Sentath]

43. Ooh, that would be complicated by the fact that there are several of them

Still do-able I imagine, but I admit I haven't the faintest idea how to do so.

[shanti]

19. wow...just wow

[Liberal_in_LA]

20. I hope he gets his job back, coworkers also

[coalition_unwilling]

21. USA! USA! USA! :sarcasm: - n/t

[AJTheMan]

22. What a heartless company.

Everything is about liability and bottom line. They don't realize that these people need those jobs but they don't want to have to sacrifice their principle to keep them.

[dgauss]

29. That's what it is about for this company, liability.

According to their website they supply "risk management." It seems to me their primary goal is to prevent lawsuits which will cost their clients money. Saving lives is a way to do that, but only saving certain lives saves money. Saving other lives introduces financial risks, so employees are punished for saving a life that introduces that financial risk.

It's an insidious corporate mindset that too many people just accept. A human being was going to drown and another human being saved him. In a sane society that would be the bottom line.

[HiPointDem]

32. +1. They're a global company & service 80% of US waterparks.

[joeglow3]

39. True, but a sane society would not have let lawsuits get so out of hand that it led to this

There is more that is fucked up than just a company.

[Swede Atlanta]

66. Joe, be careful what you wish for with tort reform.....

I do not deny there have been examples of damage awards that, at least to an external observer, were inconsistent with reason. But unless you are on the jury, hear the evidence, consider the facts against the law as instructed by the judge, observations and "gut feelings" are moot.

In our society we compensate wrongs with the award of money. That is supposed to make the victim of wrongs "whole". We can have a whole discussion on whether that is a reasonable way to "right" a "wrong", in whole or in part.

If you significantly limit liability then companies and others will adjust their level of care and diligence accordingly. If, for example, they ran the risk of unlimited liability, they are going to have policies and procedures that guard against causing harm. If the liability is limited to say $250,000, they will take greater risk because they figure the likelihood they will cause harm is X and they can afford say $1,000,000 in damages if it means they can make Y profit. So more individuals will potentially be harmed.

Further if someone or a company does something egregious, would you want their liability and compensation to a victim to be limited to a specific dollar amount? Remember that damage awards are usually limited to what jury determines are just compensation for the injury or harm including things that are sometimes hard to put in monetary terms such as the companionship of a spouse, but also prospective value of life, lost wages and benefits as well as medical and other expenses incurred and those likely to be incurred as a result of the harm. These are intended to compensate a victim.

Punitive damages usually require a higher degree of malfeasance by someone and are intended to punish.

Again I agree there have been instances of over reach by juries but those awards are always subject to appeal and reduction or reversal by appellate courts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

73. Tort reform is a scare phrase for insurance companies to use.

I worked at a major metropolitan courthouse for nearly 20 years and I can tell you about tort actions.

The insurance companies told the doctors that if the legislature passed tort reform, and maximum payouts for injuries, that their premiums would go down. Well, they didn't. The insurance companies screwed over the doctors.

Secondly, the cost of malpractice claims is 1 to 2% of the insurance companies' cost of doing business.

Thirdly, the doctors do not police themselves. It is not fair to be charged malpractice insurance on the basis of your specialty. There are a small percentage of doctors, say 1 to 5% that are incompetent, due to alcohol or drug abuse, or whatever. They are not disciplined by the state boards.

I took a deposition in a malpractice case against a doctor who did not arrive soon enough to deliver a baby who had severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. This child would never be able to do anything more than hold her head up like a three-month old child.

Was this doctor disciplined or suspended by the Texas medical board? No, he wasn't even charged with any thing by the board. No slap on the wrist even. He moved to another state and continued his malpractice on unsuspecting patients.

Fourth, a good lawyer will not take a "dog" case. That means a bad fact situation, where the injured party committed a lot of contributory negligence, which is a fancy legal word for being a dumbass. Good lawyers do not file bad cases. It will cost them too much money.

Fifth, taking a case as a plaintiff's lawyer costs money. You have to hire expert witnesses, court reporters to take depositions (what I used to do) and other people. A good lawyer won't take a case unless he reasonably expects to get his out of pocket costs back,his 1/3 to 40% contingency fee and some money for the client.

Sixth, there is an easy way for a judge to dismiss a case with no facts in controversy. It's called a Motion for Summary Judgment. That is filed by the defendant and it says "Please dismiss this case because there are no facts in evidence. This is frivolous. Make them go away."

Suppose you have a cap on damage awards, say $250,000 and an injured plaintiff needs more than that for lifetime care. What happens if the corporation or insurance company does not pay? The injured person becomes a burden on the taxpayers. I have seen paralyzed people in court who got nothing for suing the hospital that did not treat them adequately. So now they are a burden on the taxpayers. That is not fair.

Greg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas, used to be a lawyer in Houston, and later a judge. He's in a wheelchair. What happened? He was out jogging in Houston, a tree fell on him, injured him and paralyzed him. He sued the homeowner for damages. He's in favor of tort reform which makes him a big hypocrite.
It's OK for him to sue if injured, but not for everybody else who is injured by someone else's actions.

So tort reform is not really a problem. It's a way to scare people who know nothing about the law, the Rules of Civil Procedure, or anything else. It's just whining insurance companies poormouthing.

Anything else you wanna know from a legal person without a license, but having a J.D. degree?

Free advice: Don't rob banks. Don't roll old ladies in parking lots. You're welcome!!!

[HiPointDem]

89. +1. increasingly, suing is the only recourse people have -- capital would love to make it even

more inaccessible.

[treestar]

62. Exactly, goodness, isn't there a good Samaritan law

that would save them from liability except for gross negligence?

[mike dub]

67. there is for boaters...

treestar-- there's definitely a Good Samaritan law for boaters, but I'm not sure in the lifeguard's case.

Just for grins, the first part of the boater's Good Samaritan law is a bound duty to assist those in distress, as long as doing so doesn't put your own vessel and/or crew at great risk). Boaters (sailors, in my case) can be held liable if they *do not* assist anyone apparently in distress. ****This may parallel the lifeguard case: had the lifeguard not saved the swimmer, and the swimmer drowned just outside the Hallandale limits, would Hallandale Beach, Ellis Management and/or the lifeguard be getting sued now for failing to lend basic human aid within sight of the distress? Answer may be Yes.

Anyway, a little more about the boating Samaritan law: the law generally absolves the samaritan from liability once they have committed to lending aid...example: not liable for property-damaging collision between distressed vessel and samaritan vessel, injury, etc.

I guess the bean-counter's worry/liability in the lifeguard case would be, Suddenly a swimmer on Hallandale Beach begins struggling at the exact time the lifeguard is rescuing the drowning swimmer just outside the beach limits. A different situation, and I don't know legally how that would shake out.

But I think the lifeguard was 100% correct in this case. PS- I'm not a lawyer, just a sailor.

[uponit7771]

81. +1!

[progressivebydesign]

24. Is Florida just a cesspool, or what?

Between this story and the woman, 73, fired from Walmart for touching a woman's sweater after the woman pushed her down... And Florida's laws are SO anti-worker, that this shit keeps happening. Adding it to my list of places I'll never fucking visit or live.

[Kyad06]

47. agreed, the place is so twisted

You don't know who you are talking to there either. Many people with shady pasts move there to hide.

[Patiod]

48. I just googled that story, and it's heartbreaking

Was surprised at the number of anti-corporation, anti-walmart, pro-union comments on the article in the Tampa paper's website.

There were three or four individuals who were piping in with conservative talking points ("she was fat and deserved it" "why hadn't she saved more money over her life - why still working at 73?&quot but I was shocked by the LACK of pro-corporate comments. Maybe the tide is changing.

[abolugi]

26. So after all

the backlash they get for firing ONE guy they proceed to fire six??
Lets see how that works out for you...

[canonfodder]

27. Just wrong

Mr. Lopez should have been lauded for his effort.
Thank you, Mr. Lopez, for caring enough to break the rules when necessary.

[tanyev]

33. Couldn't you start out in the protected zone but get dragged into the unprotected zone

by the current? That's just messed up.

[mike dub]

70. I agree, tanyev

Swimming the beaches in north Florida (south of Jacksonville, north of Daytona), I can sit in the surf and be dragged hundreds of feet South in just a few minutes. Eyeing a fixed point on the beach -umbrella or beach chair- I can see how quickly I'm being towed. I think one could lose awareness of that, as a swimmer-- further out in the surf. I haven't been swimming on the beaches in the Hallandale Beach area, but they could have similar currents down there too.

[SCVDem]

34. Wow! A Death Panel

The decision was to let an "uninsured", out of bounds swimmer drown.

This is what small government and large private control gives us!

People be damned! Profits must be protected.


(Good thing the Ski Patrols don't operate like this.)

[WI_DEM]

35. What utter nonsense

[snooper2]

36. So in 50 years when half of Florida is underwater where will the crazy folk from there go?

Can we have some kind of national plan that distributes them evenly across the other lower 48

[harun]

49. Hopefully Oklahoma

[Bake]

50. Let 'em drown.

The Allmighty Corporation will bless you.

Bake

[Eddie Haskell]

37. Maritime Law

In the case of a mayday situation the Rescue Coordinating Center (RCC) will canvas via VHF and/or SSB emergency channels plus any traffic control frequencies for any available vessels in the area to provide assistance to the vessel in distress. Once you answer that call and you are requested by RCC to go to that vessels assistance, refusal to comply for no good reason will have legal consequences, the least of which will be the removal of the master’s commercial license if he has one.

This may not apply, but the idea of rendering assistance when asked goes way back. I bet the young man will get his job back.

[Historic NY]

38. So now your down 7 life guards...real smart Hallandale Beach....

putting your trust in a company that doesn't care about lives only King cash.

[aggiesal]

40. This is what you get when you profitize, ooops, I mean privatize everything ...

The problem is that Orange County no longer supplies the lifeguards at its beaches.
They've contracted that out to a company called Jeff Ellis Management.
It provides lifeguards to Hallandale Beach (where the incident occurred)
and at two public beaches.

The owner Jeff Ellis said
[font color=red]"We are not a fire-rescue operation. We are strictly a lifeguard organization—
we limit what we do to the protected swimming zones that we've agreed to service."[/font]

[font color=red]"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area,"[/font] said Susan Ellis

**************************************************************************

So there you have it.
Profits and liabilities are more important then saving a life.

Oh, BTW, I better make sure my property taxes are paid, or the fire department
may not arrive to put out the fire, the next time my house is on fire.

[valerief]

41. Makes sense for a state that supposedly elected (proprietary voting machines, so…) a governor

who committed so much Medicare fraud he had to pay the govt 2 billion dollars!

Up is down in the limp dick state.

[Smilo]

42. Well it is Florida

and the "ruling class" there don't believe in anyone acting humanely - it is just not in their vocabulary.

Kudos to Lopez and his co-workers for showing what being a great human being is about - hoping someone will reward you for your selfless acts.

[Daemonaquila]

44. Hoping that company goes down in flames.

Seriously, does anyone do a life-saving job, let alone for minimum wage, for the money? No, you corporate idiots - they do it because they can't spend all day doing the right thing without getting paid. Don't be surprised when a lifeguard, a paramedic, a nurse, a firefighter, or a doctor actually takes his/her job seriously.

This came up in another context when I was working at a renaissance fair. Management thought it would be a fabulous idea to chew out an actor (who was a nurse in his real life) for saving a guy from choking to death. He read them the riot act, backed up by every cast member on the site. Not only would failing to respond to the medical emergency have been a breach of his legal duty, but you don't tell a guy who's been saving lives for 30 years that he should leave a guy choking on the ground because the company is worried about liability. Seriously, corporations - bite us.

[Festivito]

45. No M$M interests itself on who made such a policy.

Pay people to watch other people die by drowning. How much does that cost?

Makes me wonder if JEFF ELLIS LLC is related to the Bush family as in John ELLIS Bush, JEB Bush, the other hopeful BFEE scion for president.

All that matters to the M$M is that they had a reason to fire him. A REASON.

We've become a nation of sickly little monsters.

[grasswire]

74. It's an LLC...

....so we can't get info about the officers of the company. Too bad. You may be right.

[Festivito]

80. Who hires that LLC? They know. And, who are they?

They need a good warning:

Careful! Don't wander beyond our ropes because then our fair city's lifeguards are paid if and only if they let you die as you flounder, gasp for air, and drown. Have a nice day.

[backscatter712]

46. Somebody needs to dox the manager responsible to these firings.

See how he responds to an inbox full of hate-mail.

[LiberalFighter]

55. It may not be the manager but the company itself.

The company needs to be destroyed.

[skypilot]

52. I'm a bit confused.

In one part of the article it says that Lopez "jumped into the water and "double underhooked" the guy. But later in the article it says:

By the time Lopez arrived on the scene, other beachgoers had dragged the unconscious man ashore and started CPR

Am I missing something?

[Xipe Totec]

58. Nice catch!

We need more people like yourself to scrutinize these stories.

The story is compelling enough without embellishments.

[skypilot]

64. Oh good...

...it wasn't just me. I thought that maybe the heat and humidity around here had fried my brain.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. God bless privatization of public services.

And people wonder when I cringe when people say government should be run like a private corporation.

[patrice]

56. wow . . .

I was fired once for working "off the clock".

[Hubert Flottz]

57. The boss man probably saw the blue guy drowning and was pissed off

because he thought the kid had saved a voting aged democrat.

Thank Gawd for gators!

[TeamPooka]

61. Good kids...

too bad they have no future in corporate Amerika.

[hollysmom]

65. just abut ready to go to the ocean where the lifeguards yell at you

for being out of bounds, but I do believe they will still save you out there.
The problem is that people keep trying to swim near the jettys, and that is dangerous not just because of the rocks but because that is where rip tides generally form.


I don't think that our life guards are privatized yet, not all equally competent, as some regular people had to pull me out of the water last year when I tore my knee last year or the time I was bumped by a dumb, not biting, shark and they insisted it was a sun fish, uh no. it was a small 6 foot shark who just wanted to get out of the surf and back to the ocean, a couple of us pushed him back out and away from us. Yet I have seen other guards pull people out of dangerous waters when there should have not been anyone in the water and save them when it was dangerous for the guard to go in after them.

[emilyg]

68. Just heard he was hired back.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. You mean bad PR still matters?

Will wonders never cease.

[emilyg]

71. Yes.

[catchnrelease]

78. It was offered but he said no thanks

Sounds like he's had enough of that company.....I wonder about the other 6 guys.



HALLANDALE BEACH, Fla. (AP) — The Florida lifeguard who was fired after leaving his post to help rescue a swimmer outside his zone will be offered his job back, but he says no thanks.

Jeff Ellis, head of a company that provides lifeguards at Hallandale Beach, tells the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ( sunsent.nl/O9VWod) Tomas Lopez was fired too quickly.

Ellis says no area of the beach his company patrols was left unattended while Lopez went to assist a swimmer in distress. The victim survived and was hospitalized.

Lopez was fired shortly after on grounds he'd broken a company rule by leaving his section of the beach that the company was being paid to patrol.

Ellis said Thursday Lopez should never have been fired. But Lopez says he's not interested in taking the job back.

[tclambert]

72. Who fired them? Name names. That jerk should be fired, and publicly shamed.

[HotRodTuna]

75. The story I read said they quit in protest

Not that they were fired. Others were either fired or didn't get the job for saying they wouldn't follow that rule.

Of course, if some kid drowned because the lifeguard was off saving someone that was swimming in another, dangerous area and nobody was manning the main station, I think we'd have a different attitude.

I saw some Australian show with, of all people, David Hasselhoff (no idea what it was, I was travelling in Italy) and the lifeguards at the pool he was swimming laps in ran off to save a guy dying in the park. Turns out he was just a passed out junkie who got revived by an EMT with an adrenaline syringe. By the time they got back to the pool, Hasselhoff had drowned. Funny show.

[malaise]

83. Well I watched it on ABC and I did get the impression

that the first three of them quit in protest. Indeed that's what they said.

[Crunchy Frog]

76. Looks like I'm going to have to avoid Florida like the plague.

Which is too bad, because I'd really like to take my little boys to Disney World at some point.

[Alexander]

77. Can any legal experts tell me if these people have any recourse through the courts?

[taterguy]

82. LOL

[Alexander]

84. How informative.

[taterguy]

85. Just being concise

[Alexander]

86. More like useless.

[taterguy]

88. What's your problem?

[Alexander]

90. I asked nicely for information, and got your snark in return. You are the problem.

[taterguy]

91. Well excuuuuuuse me for not being a mind reader

How was I supposed to know your question wasn't snarktastic?

[Alexander]

92. I see why you have that sigline. You must get called a dumbass a lot.

Since you don't have anything useful to contribute, you can go away.

[taterguy]

93. I could

But I won't.