Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:32 AM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,147,970 times
Reputation: 5941

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
not only did this guy get fired - so did six of his co-workers, simply for stating they would have done the same thing.

Fired Florida Lifeguard's Coworkers Exit - ABC News
Well, in a live interview last night a few said they quit, weren't fired , just stuck together and quit...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:40 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,698 posts, read 34,548,464 times
Reputation: 29286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
Well, in a live interview last night a few said they quit, weren't fired , just stuck together and quit...
the original article in the OP says that two quit; this one says 6 were fired.

in any event, i guess they must be scrambling to hire some new ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,391 posts, read 5,167,094 times
Reputation: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by renault View Post
Florida is as f*ked up and backwards as California.
MAYBE, you should read the article, it wasn't FLORIDA,

Quote:
Lifeguards in Hallandale Beach work for Orlando-based company Jeff Ellis and Associates, which has been providing lifeguard services for the city's beaches and pools since 2003.
It was the company that he was working for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:52 AM
 
1,182 posts, read 1,139,716 times
Reputation: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
MAYBE, you should read the article, it wasn't FLORIDA,



It was the company that he was working for.
That is what happens when you "privatize" public safety. The first duty of a city is public health and safety. If they want to privatize the library, cutting grass in the parks, changing street light bulbs or filling potholes, that is OK but public safety stuff is too important to privatize. You get crap like this when you do. If the grass doesn't get cut today in the park, nobody is going to die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:52 AM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,387,936 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad58 View Post
On the other hand, what would you say if another swimmer drowned in Lopez' appointed protection zone, while he was 1500 feet down the beach, in the unprotected "swim at your own risk" zone?

The swimmers in Lopez' assigned 'protected' zone (children?) were probably swimming there, predominately because they knew it was a guarded zone, and they would be safe. Conversely, the swimmer that Lopez saved was 1500 feet down the beach in a well posted 'swim at your own risk' zone.
A sign saying "Swim at your own risk" does not justify sitting there and watching someone die. Neither do the rules of some heartless company.

From the article,

Quote:
Company officials said other lifeguards watched over Lopez's area during the rescue and were on the phone with 911 operators.

"The beach remained protected at all times," Ellis said.
Also, in response to whoever said this guy didn't save a life, all because the man had already been pulled out of the water by the time he got there, note that the article says he did help an off-duty nurse "attend to" the man until paramedics arrived. None of us can assume what that did or didn't entail.

And so what if he had already been rescued? Was that a gamble the lifeguard should've taken? What if he had've assumed someone else would rescue the man, and no one did? I certainly don't believe I could live with that haunting me; could you?

He did the right thing. The powers that be at that company can go drown in some unprotected area while a lifeguard watches from afar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:53 AM
 
1,182 posts, read 1,139,716 times
Reputation: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
the original article in the OP says that two quit; this one says 6 were fired.

in any event, i guess they must be scrambling to hire some new ones.
Maybe they should have formed a union and went on strike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 08:17 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,109,663 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Liberals ain't got an ounce of common sense.

Lifeguards in Hallandale Beach work for Orlando-based company Jeff Ellis and Associates, which has been providing lifeguard services for the city's beaches and pools since 2003.

This is what happens when you privatize. Write Jeff Ellis and Associates to complain.

"Liberals" have nothing to do with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Michigan
29,391 posts, read 55,591,550 times
Reputation: 22044
News update, Fla. Contractor That Fired Lifeguard For Saving Man Outside Zone Backs Down

The Hallandale Beach, Fla., lifeguard who got fired after saving a man outside his coverage zone was offered his job back, said the private contractor that employed him.

Jeff Ellis, the president of Jeff Ellis Management, told ABC News he had offered Tomas Lopez, 21, his job back today, but he declined.

Fired Fla. Lifeguard Will Be Offered Job Back - ABC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Florida
589 posts, read 850,824 times
Reputation: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
How low have we sunk when profit takes precedence over another human life?

Which human lives are you talking about?

The human life of one adult, that read all of the signs clearly stating that the area was unguarded, and chose to swim at his own risk............

or the lives of the women, children who read the signs that stated a particular area of the beach WAS guarded by Lopez, and therefore choose to swim in that specific area, because it was safe?

Last edited by Nomad58; 07-05-2012 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,987,093 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad58 View Post
Which human lives are you talking about?

The human life of one adult, that read all of the signs clearly stating that the area was unguarded, and you should swim at your own risk............

or the lives of the women, children who read the signs that stated a particular area of the beach WAS guarded, and therefore choose to swim in that specific area, because it was safe?


So by your logic, let the guy drown, right? I mean, who cares, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top