Rules are rules? Or made to be broken?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Did you see this news story?*Let him drown or be fired?</p>

<p>[Fired</a> Florida Lifeguard’s Coworkers Exit](<a href=“Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Out After Admitting They'd Save Man Outside Zone - ABC News”>Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Out After Admitting They'd Save Man Outside Zone - ABC News)</p>

<p>Do we let this company keep their contract next year?</p>

<p>A lifeguard was fired in Hallendale, FL for responding to a request to help save a drowning man *1500 feet away outside his zone.</p>

<p>I expect all first responders react with the same mentality as this guard.</p>

<p>The bottom line, for me, looks to be the supervisor acted foolishly. Even if it is a policy rule: no pay you drown, do you fire someone for going above and beyond?*
Of course once there was a public outcry they now are offering the jobs back. **
*[Firing</a> of Hallandale Beach lifeguard prompts outcry and review - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com](<a href=“http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-lifeguard-follow-20120704,0,4887768.story]Firing”>http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-lifeguard-follow-20120704,0,4887768.story)</p>

2

<p>I can’t imagine someone whose primary responsibility is to provide aid would be fired for doing so, whether it was in his “area” or not. It will be so much easier for him to find a new job than it would be for him to live with himself if he had simply pointed to the sign that advises people to swim at their own risk. Kudos to him.</p>

3

<p>I read this story a few days ago. I’m a trained lifeguard and so is my boyfriend. We both agree that training has taught us to save people, boundaries be damned. That’s what you do. I hope he’s reinstated or better yet, hired by a much better company.</p>

4

<p>News today… The company said this lifeguard was fired hastily and was offered his job back. The others fired and some who quit were also offered reinstatement. </p>

<p>The lifeguard who aided the swimmer declined the job reoffer.</p>

5

<p>I heard last night that they offered him his job back but he declined to take it.</p>

6

<p>Don’t blame him.</p>

7

<p>If the lifeguard had left his sector of patrolled beach unattended while going to help the person who was swimming outside the area, I could see the employer’s point. But apparently that did not happen. The patrolled area was covered at all times.</p>

8

<p>Re: #7</p>

<p>Wouldn’t responding to an actual emergency nearby take precedence over patrolling for a possible emergency (that is a relatively rare event)?</p>

<p>An analogous situation would be a police officer on patrol who sees a crime occurring just outside his/her patrol area, and then chases and arrests the suspect outside his/her patrol area.</p>

9

<p>When I read this story, I thought this is what I detest about black and white rules. I have worked for some bosses in the past who were so focused on the details that they couldn’t see the big picture. This is what happened here.</p>

<p>I admire the lifeguard for refusing to take the job back. I hope he can secure another job so he is not out the paycheck. I also read recently that beaches are finding it difficult to hire lifeguards because teens cannot afford to take the certification courses.</p>

10

<p>This is a classic example of what people talk about with bureaucratic thinking, instead of thinking of the intent they think of the literal lettering of the rule/law (anyone who ever had to deal with a state bureaucracy knows this one…). </p>

<p>When you have a beach, the point of having signs up in unguarded areas is to discourage people from swimming there and it is also designed to limit liability (which in of itself is questionable, warnings like that can’t stop a lawsuit from happening and being successful).
It isn’t designed to be a case of “if someone swims there, that is their problem”, despite what idiot commentators on news sites said, and if a lifeguard sees someone in trouble it doesn’t mean they aren’t supposed to give aid.</p>

<p>The lifeguard reacted as he is supposed to, any kind of people trained in rescue situations or first aid or the like are taught that, that when you see someone in trouble or who needs help to respond. Obviously, there are always caveats to this, first responders are taught to try and help but if their life is at risk not to do it (I am talking things like volunteer EMTs and Rescue Squad people), likewise you could be faced with a situation where you have to make choices on who to help (like after a car accident), you generally try to assess the situation and help those in the most immediate need. </p>

<p>If the lifeguard was on duty by himself, then he probably would have stayed as another poster who was a lifeguard said, since the possible consequence of helping that guy would be outweighed by the risks to the many swimming in his area. </p>

<p>I also read comments where people said things like ‘the victim was being worked on by a nurse, so the lifeguard wasn’t needed, the EMT’s were on their way, etc’. The guy was in bad shape and the nurse was doing CPR, and as someone with training I can tell you that doing single person CPR is not as effective as 2 person, for any number of reasons (more breaths/compression, more importantly, the two can switch off to allow the person doing the compressions to rest while the other person takes over and they do the breaths). There is no way to know when the EMTs would get there and they are basically trying to keep him alive until the EMT’s get there. </p>

<p>In the article I read about it, it is even worse then bureaucratic rigidness, it is in the attitude of “we contracted to cover X feet of beach, and that is all we are going to cover”. The manager from the company the lifeguard worked for sounded like your typical finance type, he basically said was that the victim was swimming outside the area we were contracted to cover, so to hell with him, and that is pathetic, even for a beancounter.</p>