Florida lifeguard says he's been offered his job back, he's not taking it

[Liberal_in_LA]

Gawd bless the internet!

Florida lifeguard says he's been offered his job back

The south Florida lifeguard fired for disregarding a protected area so he could save a swimmer outside that zone said Thursday he has been offered his job back.

But Tomas Lopez told CNN he does not plan to return to work.

The 21-year-old said his phone has been ringing off the hook with journalists trying to get his side of the story. He is set to make an appearance on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" Thursday night.

"The reason I was fired is just ridiculous," Lopez told CNN late Wednesday. "It is a ridiculous rule, really. What was I supposed to do? Just let the guy drown?"


http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/us/florida-lifeguard-fired/index.html

[DocMac]

1. And give the kid a raise, dammit!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Plus he's going to get to talk with Erin Burnett. A very pretty air-head.

[leftyohiolib]

3. why is cnn doing a segment on it? why is this a national news event

[NotThisTime]

4. That kid should have double the pay and a promotion....

Not every lifeguard would have done what he did...

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. Apparently those he worked with would have. n/t

[rocktivity]

5. "... I knew I had broken the rule," Lopez said.

"...(W)e are supposed to call 911 and hope they get there in time."





















rocktivity

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. Faced with collective action, employers back down. Will anybody learn from this? n/t

[Geoff R. Casavant]

8. My own personal difficulty with this is, his employer has a valid point.

His job was to protect swimmers in his zone. While he did the right thing rescuing someone, it must be remembered that doing so left his own zone unprotected.

I will be the first to admit I know nothing about the business of lifeguarding, and no question he did the right thing in hindsight, but it seems to me his first step should have been to determine that the lifeguard assigned to the distressed swimmer's zone was aware and capable of reaching the swimmer before leaving his own zone.

[cynatnite]

9. Seems to me that the lifeguard who was in that zone should have been fired...

for not being available to rescue the drowning person.

If there was no one to rescue a drowning person (no matter what zone they're in), then the closest lifeguard available should be obligated to rescue.

This kid did his job.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

11. I think a revision to the zone policy is in order.

I would bet there is a general prohibition about lifeguards leaving their zones while on duty, intended to prevent them from visiting the snack shack or otherwise leaving the zone unprotected. I would also bet it was not intended to prevent a capable lifeguard from rescuing a distressed swimmer due to an accident of geography. The policy should be clarified.

None of the articles I have read discuss the lifeguard who was responsible for that zone, and whether he/she was available, or even if he/she had already taken steps towards the rescue at the time. Obviously, if the lifeguard for a zone was already effecting a rescue, there is less justification for another lifeguard to leave his zone.

[frylock]

12. there was no lifeguard in that zone..

signs were posted in that zone stating as much. swim at your own risk.

[NYC Liberal]

19. I still don't think that would warrant firing.

If I was the employer, I'd perhaps explain why the policy is in place and then I'd come up with some way to anticipate the situation that happened.

[pinboy3niner]

14. His zone was not left "unprotected," according to other lifeguards

In CNN interviews today, they said that two other lifeguards were monitoring the zone while Lopez performed the rescue.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. Good to know, I had not heard that.

The employer's position gets less defensible with each new revelation.

[HopeHoops]

10. I'm guessing he isn't a rMoney supporter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yes, you were supposed to let the guy drown

this is the new privatized world. Incidents like yours bring this to stark light, good for you.

[lpbk2713]

16. The irony on the part of his former employer was incredible.

Think about it ... they didn't want a life saving lifeguard on their payroll.

Now they're having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Justice can be sweet some times.

[yellowcanine]

17. What about the six other lifeguards who were fired for SAYING they would have done the same thing.

More troubling issues there it seems to me.

[TNLib]

18. Life guards working on a public beach should be working for the county not some evil private company

I hat the privitazation of what should be public services.