Lifeguard fired for having rescued drowning man

Conversely, although you are legally permitted to take such action as to terminate the individual for acting so, you cannot save your organization from negative publicity when you remove a lifeguard for acting like, well, a lifeguard.

But he didn't act like a lifeguard, he abandond the area he was supposed to be keeping safe.
I wonder if he removed the lifeguard on duty flag from his beach when he left it to go elsewhere? Afterall when it comes to water safely you not only have to inform the other lifeguards of what you are doing you also have to consider the swimmers you are supposed to be covering.

Edit to add a question.
If you are swimming on a beach that has lots of lifeguards but has been red flagged do you expect any of them to enter the water if you screw up?

[Platapus]

This company handled this entirely wrong.

The correct thing would have been to publicly commend what he did and then privately council him on the policy and call it square.

Unless this employee had a history of violating company policy, why fire him? You not only lose a potentially good employee but also garner bad publicity.

This company turned this from a win-win to a lose-lose.

You miss it entirely Platapus, it wasn't just violating company policy, it was breaking the most important rule which all lifesavers know.
How can he be a potentially good employee if he threw rule #1 out the window to go on a wild goose chase.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But he didn't act like a lifeguard, he abandond the area he was supposed to be keeping safe.
I wonder if he removed the lifeguard on duty flag from his beach when he left it to go elsewhere? Afterall when it comes to water safely you not only have to inform the other lifeguards of what you are doing you also have to consider the swimmers you are supposed to be covering.

Edit to add a question.
If you are swimming on a beach that has lots of lifeguards but has been red flagged do you expect any of them to enter the water if you screw up?

But he did act like a lifeguard. He saw a man in danger and saved him. Would you have prefered that he did nothing because the person was past the magical barrier of the duty area? Should he have done nothing and watched the man drown? Or call 911 and then watch the man drown? He can see the man. It is not as though this was happening miles away.

I would answer your question with another question. If you were trained to save lives in a particular manner and see a man in danger pertaining to the particular expertise that you hold, do you do nothing even if he is out of your jurisdiction?

EDIT: And according to the article update, another lifeguard manned his station while he saved this man. His duty was not neglected.

But he did act like a lifeguard. He saw a man in danger and saved him.

No he didn't he abandond his post, and no he didn't, the swimmer was already on the beach by the time he arrived.

I would answer your question with another question. If you were trained to save lives in a particular manner and see a man in danger pertaining to the particular expertise that you hold, do you do nothing even if he is out of your jurisdiction?

The particular manner he is trained in is to cover the area he is responsible for.

And according to the article update, another lifeguard manned his station while he saved this man. His duty was not neglected.

How can that be since he didn't save the man?
Where did the fifth life guard come from?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No he didn't he abandond his post, and no he didn't, the swimmer was already on the beach by the time he arrived.

Semantics. He was called upon by another to help. He did what should have been done.

The particular manner he is trained in is to cover the area he is responsible for.

So I will take that as, you would have stood by. Unfortunately, you would now be liable for prosecution for having done nothing.

How can that be since he didn't save the man?

He did administer aid, at least according to the article.

Where did the fifth life guard come from?

I wasn't there. I only told you what the article said. You should consider asking that lifeguard.

[Stealhead]

I think he will have no trouble finding a job as a lifeguard someplace else unless he has a really bad work record.

@AVG

In correct. He was instructed to guard a particular area. He is trained to save lives. Saving a life does not know any perimeters that I'm aware of.

Being a lifeguard does have parameters, perhaps you should be aware of that as that is the reason he got fired.

I'll say it again Tribesman. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

Goes with the job.
Don't like rule#1 then don't take the job.

If he sat and did nothing while the swimmer drowned you would probably believe he was a lout and should have performed his lifesaving despite company policy. Fire him for his inaction!

Do you notice something about the people who take the same view as me on this?

@Tak

Semantics.

No, accuracy.

He did what should have been done.

Not as a lifeguard.

So I will take that as, you would have stood by.

Interesting, what do you base that nonsense on?
Re read your post#11 and look at the two important words which are dealt with in post#13

Unfortunately, you would now be liable for prosecution for having done nothing.

On what possible basis?

He did administer aid, at least according to the article.

According to him in the article? according to him he was saving lives? according to one article he also rescued the person from the sea?

I wasn't there. I only told you what the article said. You should consider asking that lifeguard.

I had already pointed out that some of the articles are telling very different stories and the lifeguard iseems to be telling different stories.
If I was to consider asking any of those lifeguards anything I would ask to other two that got fired if they can remember their training and would like to think again before they gave their answer or go through a refresher course to get re certified for the job.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

On what possible basis?

I don't know about Ireland nor Florida but atleast here in Finland we have duty to render assistance - ofcourse within our skills. For example if I - commoner with only basic CPR skills - opted to not help person with medical emergency I would be prosecuted for it. Would I be offduty paramedic and I opted to not help court would treat me much more harshly than if I was just commoner.

EDIT: This part of Criminal Code deals with duty to render assistance in general: Rikoslaki 19.12.1889/39, 15 § (21.4.1995/578) Pelastustoimen laiminlyönti

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If I was to consider asking any of those lifeguards anything I would ask to other two that got fired if they can remember their training and would like to think again before they gave their answer or go through a refresher course to get re certified for the job.

Articles which I read stated that those another two lifeguard did not get fired but resigned in protest. Could you please point me to article where they were fired?