E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTomas Lopez, 21, says he was fired for leaving his lifeguard chair on Hallendale Beach in southern Florida to save a swimmer who was drowning in an area outside of his patrol zone. NBC's Mark Potter reports.
A Hallandale Beach, Fla., lifeguard said he was fired after he left his post to rescue a man drowning outside the zone he was hired to patrol.
Lifeguard Tomas Lopez told NBC 6 that on Monday he was alerted by beachgoers that a man was struggling in the water, which was part of unguarded territory outside the lifeguard zone. He said he raced out to try and help him. A sign warning beachgoers to swim at their own risk separates the two zones.
"I was on stand, and guests came up to me and told me there was someone drowning, that people were screaming and so I started running in the direction,” he said.
See the original report at NBCMiami.com
Now, two other lifeguards say they have also been fired over failing to agree with the company policy, and four others say they have quit in protest.
The president of the company, Jeff Ellis, could only confirm that one employee was let go, and as many as three have resigned, said Hallandale Beach spokesman Peter Dobens.
Ellis said in a statement to NBC 6 Wednesday afternoon that the company is reviewing the situation.
"On radio I heard Tommy saying, ‘I'm going for a rescue but it’s out of our zone,’” said Kalok Geng, one his coworkers who has quit.
Their manager told him not to go and to call 911, Geng added.
By the time Lopez got to the man, beachgoers had managed to pull him out of the water.
"I put him in the recovery position, which we are trained to do, and I had a nurse come and help me,” Lopez said.
The man was rushed to Aventura Hospital, where he is in intensive care, according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
Watch the most-viewed videos on msnbc.com
When Lopez returned to his post, he knew what was next.
"And I’m like, I'm going to lose my job, aren't I?” he recalled saying.
Lopez said he knew that wasn’t in his zone, but he said he couldn't sit back.
"I was prepared for it,” he said of his firing. “It wasn't too much of an upset because I had my morals intact over my job.”
Fort Lauderdale lifeguard who went missing and then was found
The city of Hallandale Beach hired Jeff Ellis Management to provide lifeguards for the beach.
Supervisor Susan Ellis, who was on lifeguard duty Wednesday, said she had no comment.
“If he was well-intentioned and tried to do what he believed was the right thing, even if he deviated from policy, I'm not sure termination was the right thing to do,” Ellis said of Lopez in his statement.
Ellis added that he needs to know exactly what happened.
“Once this investigation is complete, if we did something inappropriately, we will make it right. That includes offering him his employment back if he was terminated in haste,” he said.
Ellis is expected in Hallandale Beach Thursday to oversee a full investigation into the matter, Dobens said. He added that the city will wait for the results of the investigation.
"The city's position is if there's an actual emergency, the lifeguard should assist instead of waiting for a perceived emergency," Dobens said.
Dobens assured residents the beach was protected and continues to be protected.
"There's no way I'm agreeing with the company. If I see someone dying or they need my help, I'm going to go help them, because that’s my job,” said Zoard Janko, one of lifeguards.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Kids cross border alone, fleeing drugs and gangs
- 3 kids electrocuted while swimming in Mo., Tenn.
- Video: Oregon unveils ‘Electric Highway'
- Hot dog! America celebrates Fourth of July
- Could you pass the US citizenship test?
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Lopez does the right thing -- seeking to help someone in distress -- to rescue someone -- and his company fires him? Somebody give Lopez a job -- and a big reward for being a decent, caring human being....
the city better end this contract and fast, this is bad for there city
The RIGHT thing to do! Help save people in trouble. The scumbags, Jeff Ellis Management, can kiss my a** Everybody g**gle them and leave them an email.
What is the @!$%#s email??
Had someone drown on a patrolled beach while the lifeguard was doing a side job in a clearly marked free zone you all would have hung him. But yes, Ellis is a dick.
They took down their website, but, you can get their phone number here.
manta.com/c/mm01g7b/jeff-ellis-management-llc
Totally agree Abby. When I read this in the local paper I thought wouldn't it be nice if the individual who he rescued was the head of a big corporation and hired this honorable young man. He did the right thing - a life was at stake. What in the world is happening in this world?
What unbelievable a$$holes! If this management co. is not itself fired - and soon - I'll never bring my family to that beach town.
@bluthunder, I also saw that they took their site down (or the hosting service was overwhelmed), but the Google cache says they have 25 years of experience.
Clearly, one thing they did not learn in 25 years of business: How bad word of mouth can sink a business.
They need to admit their mistake, apologize ASAP, hire the kids back, or they are probably done.
I think this management company just shot a hole in their boat! What kind of company like that deserves to be in business anyway??!!
No don't give him a job, find him (and the other guards for a class action suit) an attorney to sue this scum for wrongful termination and get him a $1,000,000 or more settlement. Companies like this will only change once they lose their butts financially. They are intrinsically unethical and to get them to do likewise is an act in futility. Look at the Wall Street Journal if you want to see what most companies are doing these days: sue this, fraud that. It's really disgusting and needs to be fixed. This is a way to make that fix permanent for at least this particular area.
The argument by the management company is weak sauce. Do you mean they would hold their ground and fire a lifeguard who rescued another human if that person was rescued even 1 foot on the other side of the figurative line drawn in the sand? They actually would instruct their employees to watch a person die if they happen to be drowning a foot away on another "property"? What if it was a child and they drifted over the property line with the current but entered on the life guarded property...is anyone going to just let the child flounder in the water? The management company would...they would say...let the child drown because they drifted.
Drowning is one of those things that you do not have time for 911 or for emergency crews to get there unless you plan on it just being a resuscitation if that. You need to get their head out of the water as soon as possible. The management company should get out of the life-guarding business permanently and be sued by the city for failure to meet the expectations of the contract.
If all the lifeguards at this company went on strike and posted a sign similar to the one on the non-guarded beach saying to swim at your own risk, then the city might change their tune with regards to the management company.
The city should jettison the management company and instead, hire all the lifeguards (who now would be unemployed once the company they work for loses the contract) as city employees instead. In the long run, they would save a lot of money by eliminating the middle man (management company) and hiring the lifeguards directly as city workers and all them to rescue anyone anywhere that needs help.
Someone should start a petition to remove this company...I'd sign it as I would not want to visit that beach, especially if I had kids and they happen to be swimming one foot or more over the property line because the current took them there.
I bet dollars to doughnuts the company's policy has to do with insurance regulations and the terms in their contract with the city. May want to hold on a minute or two before you round up the lynch mob, folks. You don't want to show up and find out you don't have enough rope.
@ robtzu...
So, if the life guard company was dumb enough to go with an insurance company that demanded that no rescues take place outside a property, what is the worst that would happen if the life guard saved the person. The insurance company drops them as a customer.
Now, if the life guard had just stood there, watched the man drown because his boss told him to, what do you think the lawsuits against the company and a trained life guard would be? They would be out of business and maybe have to pay a lot more money to the victim's estate...especially if the victim maybe entered the water on the beach but a riptide or something carried them over the property line.
Are you suggesting that if I entered the water on the city property but got caught in a riptide and pulled over to another property, that once I drifted across that fictitious white line painted on the water, that a lifeguard who may have been swimming out to me is supposed to just stop, turn around, and let me drown because I no long am in front of their patrol area? (as with riptides, to escape them, you must swim parallel to the shore until you are out of it and by then, probably exhausted and most likely, were carried in front of another property). What if they were only 5 feet away from me when I drifted across and I was 100 yards from shore? That last 5 feet tells them to turn around and wave bye?
That is ludicrous.
And, if for some reason, the person still drowned even though the life guard tried to save them, the life guard and the company are protected under good Samaritan laws from liability of being sued unless they were criminally negligent.
Perhaps the City should hire Lopez in a capacity that would oversee activities for the beach. Things like hiring and firing of Management companies that do business for the beach.
JRS brings up a good point: everybody is instructed to swim parallel to the shore in the event of a riptide. But that will take you out of most lifeguard zones. So if you are really really in trouble, you won't be rescued in Florida? I hope any laws are changed there. In most states even a volunteer who has First Aid certification must rescue a person (if not a lifeguard, at least once they are out of the water). And that's what the lifeguard did: other people pulled the victim out of the water, and the lifeguard did First Aid. And the Good Sam laws cover people who try to do a rescue, so what in the world is that management company thinking?
Welcome to the wonderful world of privatization, folks. I can't wait till city services like fire and police are run the same way in America. Won't it be a wonderful place to live when you get caught up in the corporate red tape and you die or your house burns to the ground??
What a great idea </s>
I hope this dude wins a billion dollars after he sues the company and city for wrongful termination.
Try email the company at info <AT> jeffellismanagement [dot] com to tell them what a "great" job they're doing.
Unfortunately -- this is the mind set of way, way too many businesses in this nation today. Today -- results don't matter. Following the process matters.
Fire the bosses.
It seems like the actual owner of the business may not be totally behind the firing, and that the onus is on the supervisor.
Which doesn't surprise me. Once again, we have a manager that was trained to be a police officer of corporate rules and policies, and not an actual leader of people.
"beachgoers had managed to pull him out of the water" and if someone had drowned in the protected area because the lifeguard was at the unprotected area...what then?
They probably have some kind of rule why they can't leave their zone. I'm not sure, but they probably figure a life guard can only manage a certain area and if they watch over a larger area it puts others at risk.
This whole story reminds me a lot of people that don't pay a yearly service fee for the city fire department and then they lose their house to fire because of it. If you want protection/security you need to work within the rules set for that protection.
Really natemesis! What ever happened to common decency? Are we not all part of the same race or are some of us less than because we don't pay for protection! Towns that require you to pay or watch your house burn down are nothing but extreme examples of corporate greed! Just like this company.
Now the co owner says they will investigate; after the fact. Where was she beforehand. Some poor underling will take the blame and lose their job and when the unlawful terminations lawsuits are settled the company will go out of business, only to open up under another name 6 months later.
Is it possible the CITY was the one who initiated the out-of-zone-no-rescue policy? If so, perhaps the CITY should be hearing an earful here!
This swimmer was swimming just out of the safety zone, and the Life Guard opted to save him. We send rescuers out who risk their lives climbing mountains to find mountain climbers or hikers in trouble. These adventuresome people are the risk takers who strive for glory and don't count the cost. They are the ones who, once saved, resume their perilous ways regardless of the tole on the rescuers. Why do we do this? Because saving a LIFE is the SUPREME reason we are HUMAN. Once we cease to care about humanity, we become....corporations. With voting privileges. And selfish motives.
Madvargr, they're already ran that way in rural areas and have been for decades. When our house burned in the mid 70s, the police came out but only to direct traffic. The firemen stood watch in case the fire spread onto adjoining property, and did nothing but watch our home burn. The reason: the home owner (we were renters) had not paid his rural fire dues. If your dues aren't paid, your property burns and they won't lift a finger to stop it.
One question: would he still be employed if he sat there and let the man drown?
If I needed someone to have my back, it would be Mr Lopez. Something good will come out of this.
I think it is absolutely horrible that this company's policy would rather have the lifeguard let the person drown until 911 rescue arrived. I am sure if it was someone in their family, they would feel differently. It would be like a doctor not performing CPR on a heart attack victim because he is not on call. The company should be reprimanded for having these policies in place and forcing the life guards to choose their job or saving a life.
@natemesis
Put down that pipe that you are smoking and get your head trait before posting will you. Your logic is just not there. What you are saying is: If I rescue a drowning person over there then the people over here drown, so I better not rescue the drowning person and keep watch over the people in the water because they might be drown.
The one that should be fired is the boss that fired the life guard for being a hero. That man likely would have drowned if they waited for 911.
Then that is a problem with the company's policy, and so it is still their problem. Their problem is, they are more interested in counting beans than in protecting the public. They should go into a business where counting beans is their only problem, and get the @!$%# out of the way of people who are actually interested in protecting the public.
I think we've got PLENTY of rope here, pal.
Contact Us
Thank you for contacting Jeff Ellis Management.
ph: (800) 742-8720
f: (800) 787-8950
e: info@jeffellismanagement.com
You can also leave a message using the contact form below.
Enjoy..........I know I will :)
Here is Hallandale Beach's Info too.
Categories
Telephone
City Attorney 954-457-1325
City Clerk 954-457-1340
City Commission 954-457-1300
City Manager 954-457-1300
CRA 954-457-1377
Public Works,
Utilites and Engineering
954-457-1600
Public Works 954-457-1600
Construction and
Custodial 954-457-1600
Cemetery 954-457-1618
Fleet
Maintenance 954-457-1613
Landscaping /
Beautification
954-457-1600
Memorial Tree
Program 954-457-1618
Sanitation 954-457-1616
Utilities &
Engineering 954-457-1623
Mini-Bus
Information 954-457-1620
Sewer, Stormwater and
Water Distribution
954-457-1620
Street -
Maintenance/Lighting
954-457-1620
Water Plant 954-457-1632
Development
Services 954-457-1375
Planning &
Zoning 954-457-1378
Building
Division 954-457-1383
Code Compliance 954-457-1390
Local Business
Licensing (954)457-1341
Finance 954-457-1370
Utility Billing
Division 954-457-1360
Fire Rescue 954-457-1470
General Services 954-457-1331
Human Services /
Hepburn Center
954-457-1460
Information
Technology 954-457-2225
Parks and
Recreation 954-457-1452
Personnel / Labor
Relations 954-457-1345
Police
Department 954-457-1400
Office of the
Chief
Risk Management 954-457-1310
Categories
Telephone
City Attorney 954-457-1325
City Clerk 954-457-1340
City Commission 954-457-1300
City Manager 954-457-1300
CRA 954-457-1377
Public Works,
Utilites and Engineering
954-457-1600
Public Works 954-457-1600
Construction and
Custodial 954-457-1600
Cemetery 954-457-1618
Fleet
Maintenance 954-457-1613
Landscaping /
Beautification
954-457-1600
Memorial Tree
Program 954-457-1618
Sanitation 954-457-1616
Utilities &
Engineering 954-457-1623
Mini-Bus
Information 954-457-1620
Sewer, Stormwater and
Water Distribution
954-457-1620
Street -
Maintenance/Lighting
954-457-1620
Water Plant 954-457-1632
Development
Services 954-457-1375
Planning &
Zoning 954-457-1378
Building
Division 954-457-1383
Code Compliance 954-457-1390
Local Business
Licensing (954)457-1341
Finance 954-457-1370
Utility Billing
Division 954-457-1360
Fire Rescue 954-457-1470
General Services 954-457-1331
Human Services /
Hepburn Center
954-457-1460
Information
Technology 954-457-2225
Parks and
Recreation 954-457-1452
Personnel / Labor
Relations 954-457-1345
Police
Department 954-457-1400
Office of the
Chief
Risk Management 954-457-1310
City of Hallandale Beach
400 South Federal
Highway
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
954-458-3251
The lifeguard did the right thing. He should be a CEO of any investment firm. I mean he probably wont steal 2 billion and then resign with a 500million exit bonus.
That is what is wrong with America: it is a country run by the lawyers, dictating every stupid rule you can think of. Even the current Commander in Chief is a lawyer, and Clinton was a lawyer too. US has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined.
If someone ever drowns on that beach, Ellis is going to be sued into oblivion by the victim's family. His micromanagement and blatant disregard for life if it falls outside of his work policy rules is public knowlege now.
If anyone has ever worked with or alongside union workers, it sounds very familiar. "No, I can't move that 2 lb piece of pipe that someone might step on. It's against union rules."
Privatization ... gotta love it.
NOT!!!!!!!!!
Cheetah (#1.4): I don't think anyone would have hung him had someone drowned in his zone at the same time, I think everyone would have instead turned their attention to other matters, like demanding more lifeguards and calling the city out on being stingy and not willing to pay for more than one at a time.
natemesis (#1.21): you're probably right about the rule, in fact I'm sure you are; however, moral and ethical codes (following the rule of protecting the welfare and well-being of the public under common law) oftentimes trump policies that go against such codes. That said, I'm not sure how fire departments have continuouslygotten away with the property-burning situations over the years like they have.
These are sad times indeed when people are reprimanded for attempting to help others when they need it the most and lives are at stake.
@ Gilboagirl,
I'm guessing with your common decency you'd also like to increase social medicine and save everyone too? That's fine if you want to turn out like Greece eventually bankrupt and without any socialized medicine to help anyone. You can't help the few that don't pay unless you hurt the majority.
Other beach goers saved this guy, I'm positive if I were the lifeguard though I would have done the same thing and gotten fired, but companies, cities, countries have these rules for a reason.
It would not matter if he worked at McDonald's. If you see someone who needs help you help them.
If your job is to sell sunscreen on the beach and you see someone drowning, no it's not your job and it's not in your area but you still run and help if you can.
Seems like the company would of investigated and reviewed the incident before firing him. Maybe pending on the outcome of the victim and come to a conclusion that way. Either way you cant expect the lifeguard to just sit and watch someone die. Hell, just dock him the pay for that time and say he did it on his break.
The problem is that there is a section of beach that is being guaranteed to be patrolled and everyone there has the expectation that if something happens, there will be a lifeguard ready to assist. When the lifeguard leaves, suddenly the protection is not there and that's a serious problem. Yes, he did the right thing in saving a life and he shouldn't be fired for it. However, there is a reason why they have a section with guaranteed protection and a section without protection. People have a choice where to swim. If the person chose to swim in an unprotected area (probably because it was less crowded), then he is making his own choice and the risk is his. There is no guarantee anyone will rescue him. It doesn't really make it right, but if someone is supposed to be protecting something and they leave to do something else, no matter how honorable, then they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and if something happens, they are going to be in a lot of trouble. The city should just get more lifeguards and patrol a larger area, or have 2 lifeguards on duty for each section so that one can go into an unprotected section if needed without leaving their area unprotected. Believe me, if a child drowned in the protected area while the lifeguard wasn't where he was supposed to be, the comments on here would be 10 times as many and far more heated.
Regarding the comments about fire departments and rural fire dues, keep this in mind. First, the dues aren't that expensive. Everyone has the opportunity to pay them and they understand the risks if they choose not to. If they voluntarily choose not to pay, then the fault is their own. It doesn't matter if you agree with the policy or not... they knew the risk and chose to accept the risk just to save a little money and it bit them. It was their choice and no one forced it on them. Fire departments could change their policy to say that if you want the fire put out if you didn't pay the dues, then you'd have to pay a large fine ($5000 is probably good) and that fine can be garnished from your wages if you don't pay it within a certain time period. The person could then choose to pay the fine at the time of the fire. Of course, then people would just complain that they had to pay a fine even though it's very easy to pay your dues each year and they just chose not to.
Natemesis:
What does this have to do with anything? There are plenty of prosperous countries that have nationalized medicine and you picked the one that is dumb enough to elect Nazis and say that it is a fair representative of nationalized healthcare?
Grow up and grab an education while on your way.
When you have to make a choice between sacrificing your morality and integrity vs. keeping your job, then the company you work for needs to have it's ass kicked. People should not have to sacrifice their morality and integrity for the sake of money.
They are called LIFEguards for a reason. There is a reason they have to pass LIFEsaving courses. It's pretty obvious to me that Mr. Lopez put a human LIFE ahead of his job. He knew he'd lose the job and did the right thing here. I'm not too sure I'd trust my LIFE to a company that obviously puts dollars above LIFE. Mr. Lopez will not be unemployed for very long.
I applaud Lopez for what he did. Unfortunately, businesses have rules. If you don't follow them, you are susceptibleto firing. Was Ellis wrong? Yes. But they were following their own protocol. Its not wrongful termination.
I work for a bank. If we get robbed, we can not do anything to thwart it. Its immediate termination if we try to help anyone with a weapon pointed at them.
Harry,
I agree with the 1st part of your statement, but the second part of it that compares a lifeguard leaving his post to try and save someone and the bank robbery situation are apples and oranges. In the bank robbery situation others, employees and customers are in danger and intervening may cause harm to others.
sounds like a govt job to me.
You guys all know this is BS, don't you? This MSN reporting is just like the Treyvon Martin case - get everyone fired up before all the facts are out. No one would fire a guy for saving a life - in fact, anyone with any sense at all would issue a press release and get some good PR for the company. Something is amiss here folks. If the guy was fired, he was probably fired for the fact that he DIDN'T notice the guy drowning at first because he was goofing off or eyeballing pretty girls - and THEN tried to make it look like he was fired because he rescued a guy "outside his zone."
In fact, this story was first reported that he didn't rescue the guy at all - that others had done the deed and he showed up to help with rescusitation.
Trust me - NO ONE with any sense - especially with 25 years of experience - is going to fire a guy for saving a life when the opportunity to get GREAT PR and advertising exists just by spinning it and doing a press release.
DUH!! I'm surprised at all the hate here - you guys just actually take whatever is reported at face value?? "Well, heck, Ma... it SAYS SO in the INTERNET... so it MUST BE TRUE!!"
Catslerok,
The lifeguard did in fact lose his job. He wasn't fired for saving a life. He was fired for not following proper procedure and staying in his assigned area. He probably didn't see the swimmer in trouble because he was guarding his assigned area and did not decide to help until others approached him and ask for help.
The employer also stated they are looking at the incident and may flip flop and offer to let him keep his job. By stating that to the media, it isn't hurting their rep. The company has a legal contract with the city and it appears they did what the contract required. It doesn't make what Mr Lopez did wrong. What Mr. Lopez did was the absolute right thing to do. Performing life saving techniques after others pulled out the swimmer may have or may not saved his life, but it probaly did. That part of the story is clear to me and I can't find anyone saying Mr. Lopez jumped in and pulled the man out. Maybe I missed it though.
Are you just a jealous person that jumps in after (mostly) reading a story and feels your half @ssed opinion makes you appear to have any real answers, and your only option is to insult and comment like a 5th grader to make yourself feel intelligent?
This cat leaves his zone to rescue one person and three people who are in his zone die. This is the problem with employees. They always think they know more than the boss. They never do. I've been the boss for 30 years.
Good for this guy. I'm glad that he did what he felt was the right thing even though he knew he might get fired for it. I sure hope that something good comes out of this for him.
Here's an idea. Let the CEO of the company that fired him for breaking their rule flounder in the ocean just beyond the zone the lifeguard is bound by. Then, the lifeguard can come up to the boundary and yell "I'd love to save you, but my company won't let me cross over this line. Too bad. Bye!!!"
LOL - yeah! Jeff Ellis is a POS!!!
Not so sure it was the CEO that fired him. I would guess it was actually the supervisor on duty at the time.
@piglizard:
From the article: The beach supervisor (Susan Ellis - also a lifeguard) said "...I'm not sure termination was the right thing to do,...”.
I doubt if a first level supervisor has firing capabilities.
While all sorts of fantasies are tempting, in reality a person sworn to First Aid must perform it even for an enemy, so no, this wouldn't work. But just the satisfaction of knowing that the Good Samaritan laws cover the rescuer might be satisfaction enough: their employer couldn't sue them for being rescued.
The young man will fine a better career working some where else . I am sure. Letting someone die when you know you could save them would have been far worse than losing his job.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that haunts a person for life. It's not worth preserving a @!$%#-wages job just to keep some corporate gila monster happy.
I had a decision once to keep working at a @!$%#-wages job or go do something much more interesting, and I took the much more interesting route. If it had been a life-or-death decision, it would have been even easier to tell the @!$%#-wages paymaster to go take a hike. Something I would have GLADLY been fired for.
Bet the family of the guy he helped save is happy he went to him. I am all for rules, but to let a person drown right there when you can help? I couldn't do it. I'm glad he did it and hope he would for my family. Of course, we would be swimming where the lifeguard was on duty, but the point is this is a life we are talking about. If the lifeguard calls in a rescue as he is running to it, he could call for help to come watch his zone.
Actually, the article states that beachgoers pulled the distressed person from the water before Lopez arrived. This makes it even more bizarre that he was fired.
How COULD someone be a lifeguard and NOT go to help? If that man had drown because of an imaginary line the lifeguard is the one that would have had to live with that ALL OF HIS LIFE.
I'll tell you - that would give me nightmares. Why didn't I DO something when something COULD have been done?
Hope the company that fired him goes under, no pun intended.
Well, the lifeguard said it pretty clearly that it was a moral decision. He deserves a medal for it.
The Life guard was still the trained first responder on the scene and went immediately into First aid. The Rescue position is for victims that are unconscious and breathing.
Wow. (Jaw drops, for a moment words fail.)
He got fired for not conforming to company policy.
That happened to me once--one of the proudest days of my life!
The company should publicly apologize, beg him to take his job back, and compensate him for the nasty shock he must be suffering from their stunningly callous action.
Then he should tell them to shove off and go work somewhere else--where people, not policy and liability fear$, come first.
And who worries about leaving his "area" when someone is dying if they can help?!
Oops. Take your pick:
*his/he
*their/they
Here's a better idea: let tourists simply 'pass by' this place until they get their priorities in order.
I've never heard of such an immoral 'rule' as this. I was flabbergasted when the volunteer firefighters in TN let the home of a non subscriber burn. But having in place a policy that says if a person is drowning outside your 'zone' you ignore it is the most immoral thing I've ever heard of.
The thing is, if he'd ignored it and not helped, what do you bet the family of the drowning victim would sue?
where in Tenn??
JulianDD, it was somewhere in northwestern TN, but I forget which county.
In most states, a person who knows First Aid can't get into trouble for helping, but they can get into trouble for not helping.
Yes Elizabeth, but this is Florida, you know "stand your ground" country. Who knows what they think down there.
I'm not sure why the firefighter thing keeps coming up. Surely you realize it isn't the same thing? If they go ahead and save one house where the people didn't pay the required up front fee for the service, how many people do you think would bother to pay the fee next year (the fee that provides a large chunk of their operating budget)? If you take a risk and lose, then that is on you. Should the insurance companies pay for the damages too if the person had let their insurance lapse?
"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." H.L. Menken
Enough (#6.6): Well, using your reasoning, the same could be said about the person swimming in the non-covered, swim-at-your-own-risk zone (which is typically more dangerous so "they" want people to stay away). How many people would bother to stay out of that area and follow the rule once it is proven that posted sign or not, a lifeguard will come to the rescue if there is trouble? It creates a false sense of security and suddenly nobody cares about what the signs say. Just the same, the right thing to do was still to try and save the drowning man, just as the right thing to do would still be to save the burning house. After all, who would really know if the owner had paid the fee or not? It's not just public knowledge whether your neighbor pays his dues for the fire department, unless your neighbor shouts it from the rooftop. The insurance issue, however, is something different altogether.
yep, NW Tenn is a tourist mecca! stay in the shallow end, emsmike
Everybody wants something for nothing. On the small scale, good for the kid who TRIED to save the drowning guy (because he never actually did but helped out afterward.) Nice to know there are still decent people out there who think of others before themselves (and they seem to be getting fewer and fewer.)
On the other hand, if people would actually use their brains and stay out of dangerous situations, they wouldn't have to rely on (and endanger) others to save them. Not a good swimmer? Avoid water above your knees. Don't want to lose your house to fire? Don't overload your wiring and properly remove fireplace ashes. Or maybe pay for fire insurance or the local fire district tax. This also goes for the people who buy that huge house they really can't afford but then cry for aid when the mortgage comes due (someone ELSE pay my mortgage)
This increasing sense of ENTITLEMENT in this nation is pathetic. Everyone expects everyone ELSE to pick up the slack so they can do whatever they please. If you have the right not to pay for fire protection, you also have the right to have your house burn down. Swim in a no-lifeguard zone, and you have the right to drown. There are always choices: someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, you still have the choice to take the bullet. Not much of a choice but still a choice. People think of safety personnel as machines that are "just there." They have lives and families also. Why are we so willing to put them in harm's way so we can do what we feel ENTITLED to do. The lifeguard made the choice to break his policy and try to help. Outstanding. He even realized it might mean his job, as he mentioned it when he returned. That says alot about his character. Good on him. But now, if this precedent is set, EVERY idiot in swim trunks will go into these dangerous zones expecting to be saved, thus putting this same guy and every other lifeguard there in danger. There has to be some repercussions, although I think this outcome was the wrong one. Best answer for this might have been a ticket for the idiot who can't read signs.
This nation went through some bad times before (Great Depression, world wars.) I think the difference now is we are unwilling to accept the responsibility or consequences for actions. We keep hoping that fewer and fewer responsible people will step in and save the day.
Now, I'm not even going to broach the subject of a**hole CEOs and money-grubbing corporations that pervades this article, not to mention the fact that more and more inept and unqualified people are seeming to be promoted to positions of authority when they have no actual leadership skills or mentality to figure out how to solve problems on the lowest level. At any point, someone in this company could have used half a brain cell and realized that maybe termination was bit extreme for the situation. But no. We have dummied-down the bar so low that some 'american idol' watching, justin bieber listening moron in charge decided that this seemed appropriate. Ah well.....
Well, COmommy, the fire department does know who paid the fees and who didn't. And they show up to ensure that your neighbor's house doesn't catch on fire because they did pay the fee. It doesn't need to be public knowledge (although I suppose when the fire trucks sit in the road and do nothing it will be after the fire). And you are right. What good are the warning signs if there are no repercussions for ignoring them? Expecting someone else to endanger his/her life to save you (who chose to endanger your life in the first place) is counter-intuitive.
Welp, internet justice is about to descend upon Jeff Ellis Management.
Also, hey, another wacky story from Florida!
Pablo honey, come to Florida.
No it won't. The sorry cowards took their site down.
they took down the website, but, you can get theie phone number here
manta.com/c/mm01g7b/jeff-ellis-management-llc
Pablo...you bastard.
Pablo, are you watching your ass?
This is corporatism run amok. I am continually flabbergasted by how little awareness some business interests have of the reality "in the trenches." I have been in upper- to executive management for almost a decade now, and sometimes I shake my head in disbelief at the immutability that some companies display.
Juxtapose this to the 73-year old woman who was fired (after 22 years of loyal service as a greeter) by Walmart, when she herself had been assaulted on Black Friday by a store patron rushing in for the *great deals.* I hope that the Ellis Co. does not have their contract renewed by the City of Hallandale, especially since Ellis has now fired more lifeguards who simply stated "they would have done the same thing." Despicable.
I work for Walmart I'm sorry to say and let me tell you, I've seen people fired for having pneumonia, people getting written up for staying home with a sick child, and it goes on and on and on. But, it's the only job I could find after almost 2 years without work. That's why the do what they do. They know the job market is crap, and they know that can hold your job over your head like the proverbial sword of Damocles. Corporate policy states that a sick not from a doctor, even a surgeon, is not considered a valid excuse to miss work. So If you manager is a jerk, you can get fired for just about anything.
Screw Wall Mart !! I'd love to see them all gone !!
Walmart is the STD of stores. I have yet to meet someone who actually enjoyed thier time spent working there. And as for the life guard good for him! He did what life guards are supposed to do. To bad he was fired for it.
This is what you can expect when you privatize public stately jobs.
Not like it's any different, unfortunately.
Public safety has its limits, too. There's a town where the fire dept will watch your house burn if you don't want to pay a fee, and many cops will only go so far until "its no longer in their jurisdiction(sp?)" So even public safety has its limits. Besides the private Lifeguard company was told where the boundary would end in the negotiations and bids so the city already put the boundaries in place. Not to say I agree with the firing but it was in an area that was intentionally left unguarded by the city or state, whomever is originally responsible for it.
btldriver: that is actually a bit false- police officers are allowed out of their jurisdictions depending on the situation as well as other officers who DO have jurisdiction joining in or taking up a chase. Goes all the way from municipal to federal with the county and state officers in between. It depends on the situation and what your balliwick policy is, but MOST agencies can and do go outside of their jurisdiction both as the initiating officer as well as to back up or post (as in watch a county road for a certain vehicle, even though you are outside of city limits, being a city officer). The overlap is expected by most agencies.
AlexTheBlade: I'm glad that's the law now. My mother told a story that happened back in the 1920s or 1930s near Chicago. There was a small strip of land between the city of Chicago and the nearest northern suburb that wasn't properly within either city. A nightclub opened there, glad to not have to pay taxes (and very public about the fact that they didn't). One day, their business caught fire. Firetrucks came from both Chicago and the suburb, and watched to make sure that the fire didn't burn anything in their territory, but they didn't move to put it out either. This was because of the hubris of that nightclub, to refuse to pay taxes when it was clear that they made plenty of money and could afford to. Nobody was hurt, but the business no longer existed. It is quite a different story when it is the case of a person being possibly pulled by rip-tides in the ocean out of the boundary of the lifeguards.
Elizabeth - who were they supposed to pay taxes to? Did they ever get a bill? How would they know how much to pay? If no one had authority to tax them, then they didn't refuse because they weren't liable for any taxes.
wryview: reread. They were glad about the taxes and it sounds like they were bragging on it.
Barring an immediate potential for loss of life, which is not mentioned here, if you don't pay for services, you don't get them. Same thing happened in TN. If it's a potential loss of life it is one thing, but loss of property only is another. You can't be an uninsured driver, have an accident, and then go to the insurance company and say you've changed your mind, want to pay the premiums, and then expect the insurance company to cover your loss. It is too late. Taxes and fire fees paid for police and fire coverage are a form of insurance.
The above stories about fire coverage are not indicating a potential loss of life. That makes everything different, which is the mitigating factor in the lifeguard story. While the lifeguard has no duty to patrol the uncovered zone, and in fact by doing so, could put his own zone at risk, once he is alerted to a drowning in progress, everything changes. He absolutely did the right thing. Living with the knowledge you did nothing would be far, far worse than losing a job. And I doubt he or any of the other lifeguards will be out of work for very long.
Welcome to corporate-run business without government intervention.
The gov't would have told them where to stop providing services in the bidding process.
@btldriver
Don't bother trying to speak rationally to a moonbat. They saw a negative story involving a business and in typical "never let a good crisis go to waste" fashion they used it to attack free markets on the whole. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. These socialists will not stop until government is so big that it falls under it's own weight. Actually that's happeneing already.
Tell you what, NoScope...when you stop wanting government small enough to fit in my bedroom, I'll stop wanting government large enough to save lives.
If the city manager still has two connected brain cells, he/she will terminate that comp[any's contract immediately.
Then again common sense isn't that common anymore. SMH.
I think the city needs to hire... Tomas Lopez Management I'm guessing he will have high morals and make the city of Hallandale Beach look good.
Time for the city to fire Jeff Ellis Management.
you have to be f@cking kidding me!!
Wow, some stupid ass lawyer must had come up with that policy.
jeff its time to wake up admit you were wrong and hire him back, you should be proud to have such a fine employe,so get with it , eat some crow, if you start now you may have to eat just a little, but let time pass and you will eat the beak, feathers ,feet and all. try mustard it may help. admiting your wrong does not make you small it makes you a bigger man
They'll hire him back, but only to fire him in a month or two when all the attention has faded away. Their corporate egos have been damaged and right now the only thing they are thinking about is saving their contract(s). Hopefully this kid has a better career ahead of him and can tell them to shove their job.
R U Wade.I hope he has to eat the ass end of the crow! He is a creep
Not to long ago, some firemen stood by and watched a man drown. They just watched him die. And their excuse was, "we weren't trained for this."
WTF! Whoever fired this lifeguard needs to be fired, and those firemen should, too! There's no excuse for B.S. like this. Period.
But what if that fireman had jumped in and drowned, regardless of whether the drowning victim was saved or not. Then because the fireman wasn't trained or authorized to perfom that rescue, the city or insurance said because he was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing we're not paying any insurance, or other assistance, to his family, would it be worth it?
Its nice to sit back and blame the evil corporations with out any regard to why there are limitations on what and how jobs are taken care of.
Part of firefighter training should be how to rescue somebody in the water. In today's tight job market, it's the least that can be done. At the very least, since the fire trucks carry the "jaws of life" for car accidents, they should at least have flotation devices, or even long sticks such as the ones used to enter burning buildings, that could pull a person out. If there is any place where a person could drown in a town, the firefighters and police should have a plan of what to do.
On the other hand, many people do not know that a drowning person panics. Lifeguards know how to deal with that, and firefighters should too (as they deal with fire victims), but yes, a drowning person could pull another person under. If there is something that floats, it is best to have the drowning person grab that if possible. I wonder if the fire fighters should have had their certifications taken away if they did not have the training to effect a rescue in the water.
Because fires happen in the water?
Since performing water rescues is not part of their job (which was the point of the policy concerning water rescues), how exactly do you think their certification should be revoked? I get that you think they should be trained to do this, but your opinion isn't exactly pertinent. It isn't cost effective to train every public servant to do everybody else's job in addition to their own. By that logic, the cops should be required to put out fires if they are the first on the scene. How about if an EMT shows up at a 911 call before the cops, should they be trained to subdue a gunman? The fire department has a purpose at car accidents, they have to ensure that any hazardous spills are mitigated, so it makes sense for them to be present and have the 'jaws of life' (and the training to operate it). Dealing with water emergencies is definitely out of their purview, and just because they have to deal with fire victims, that doesn't mean they should have to know how to deal with a drowning victim while they are still in the water.
Truly despicable. I live in Montreal Canada. Lots of people from here go to FLA for vacation. I will do my best to make sure before they decide where to go next time .. they read this.
I wonder .. is this what Romney means by corporations are people too?
I'm sure we can look at some Canadian processes and services, such as medical services, and find areas where there are "silly" limitations. I remember reading about a terminally ill boy who came to the US for a surgery so he could die at his Canadian home instead of in a Canadian hospital.
I know an American who moved to Nova Scotia so that he could have his Parkinson's disease treated. It goes both ways. At least Canada pays for the medical care. But yes, Florida gets a lot of tourism, including from the U.S., and many people here in the U.S. have a second home in Florida. Too often, tourism areas take their customers for granted, even though it is the most volatile industry.
Hey Eric... What's that French guys name who's running for office up there?
Oh that right... nobody cares.
Stuff it!
LoL .. Even Canadians realize what a turd Romney is..
Hypnotooooaaaaad!!!!!
How about firing the "superior" that fired him; it's not unheard of to be fired for doing what was right but he probably saved himself and his employer a law suit by not sitting back and just watching.
I'm glad you have a conscience young man and I'm proud of your friends for standing by you and ultimately what is right!
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read! In fact, they should fire the whole crew of that company! Makes me sick to my stomach that "working within your boundaries" is more important than a man's life!!!!
I'm soooooo proud of this young man. His great reward will be in Heaven and to Hell with that CEO that fired him!
He should be awarded a great medal of honor for this!
Boycott Hallandale until they get their heads out of their ass&s
tomas, i'am a lifeguard with 30 years of service. if i did what you did i would lose my job, my health ins., my retirement, my capt. bars. but you know what ?????? i would do what you did in a heart beat. we are trained to save lives and thats what we do. [react!!!! react !!!!!!] you represent the best of the best. i'am proud to call you a brother even though i'am 55 years old and my crew call me [ gramps] p.s. what a stupid rule to have !!!!!!!!
I can't believe that this would be a rule! The lifeguard could tell everybody to get out of the water while a rescue is being done; there is no reason to limit their range, especially as rip-tides can force people to swim parallel to shore for some distance. I would hope that the laws change, but it will take some work to do that. First Aid, in many states, must be performed if a person is certified and another person is in trouble, so I'm surprised that the law is different for lifeguards, especially considering ocean currents.
I like your way of puting it down, I think the same as you, if someone needs help you just go do it no questions asked, you just do it. Wish our Dr's & Lawyers and Congress felt the same way.
Hi Jim,
You are absolutely right. I saw the interview of Tomas on TV where he stated that he had lost his job but his morals were still intact. By the way, six other lifeguards quit or were fired for siding with Tomas. There is still hope for the good old USA as long as we have good young people like Tomas and the other six who were fired or quit. They knew the right thing to do and he didn't hesitate to do the job he was trained to do.
Good Job!
We don't see enough stories about good kids like Tomas.
Well, as always with these things it's easiest to move straight to self-righteousness and outrage, but the owner of the company has to look after the company. It wasn't a time/money issue, like "We don't get paid to save people over there", it was a liability issue. Without liability protection, the company's owner could have ended up in a world of hurt. The drowning man is in intensive care. It's a medically sensitive business, drowning, and he might have brain damage, for example - a lifetime of care. Does a trained lifeguard, on the job, have a "good Samaritan" escape if the man's lawyers say that his rescue or resuscitation was handled wrongly? The employer, Ellis, might have approved of the lifeguard's obvious correct ethical judgement, and yet have had to fire him to protect himself. In another similar incident, if this guard hadn't been fired, the next set of lawyers could have said "Sure, you say that you tell them not to respond, but you obviously aren't serious. By not firing Lopez, you were actually saying 'Go ahead and ignore the policy, it's just for show, and given this tacit support, you are therefore liable ... ' " etc etc.
So, you have an unfortunate situation where someone did the right thing and should be commended and supported by the community, but firing him doesn't necessarily mean that Jeff Ellis Management is an inhuman, unethical ogre. Call Lopez a fine, principled young man and make sure he gets an even better job, but take a breath and reconsider the outrage.
Well said Bob; I was thinking the exact same thing. People jumped to the conclusion that Ellis Mgmnt are jerks when they are likely only following a policy set forth by their insurers. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that.
I mean, what if the kid tried to save the guy and failed, or cause further grevous injury of some kind; if Ellis didn't distance themselves, it would have been like admitting responsibility and would've left them open to lawsuits etc.
I think both the kid AND the company are in the right here - even if it's a bummer for the kid. I'm sure, between the publicity and a good reference from Ellis, he'll find a position elsewhere quickly. Too bad for the kids who quit "on principle" - they aren't going to have it quite so easy...
Great points and I agree completely.
The real evil here is America's obsession with suing others as a get rich quick scheme.
Most people are screaming bloody murder here, but you can't have it both ways. What happens if the drowning victim's family sues the company b/c they claim that the lifeguard made a mistake when handling him on the beach? Morality doesn't foot that bill, and legal precedence has shown that the lifeguard (and the company) can easily be liable. Moreover, the company's insurance won't cover liability exposure outside of the stated zones.
For example, it is well known that lawyers advise doctors not to get out of their car and help accident victims, b/c of the liability risk involved.
Obviously, what this young lifeguard did was morally correct, and perhaps firing him was a mistake. But the firm's policy regarding helping victims outside of their zones? That makes perfect sense from a legal standpoint.
Hold on, the Good Samaritan laws, for a person to attempt a rescue, should cover the situation. If there is an elective surgery or medical test and something is botched, there is grounds for a lawsuit. If there is a car accident that is clearly caused by one driver, there is clearly grounds for a lawsuit. But if a person suddenly appears to be drowning, that is a very different case, I would think. I know that the Good Samaritan law covers some things and not others; it should certainly cover rescue from drowning, because there is little time in that case, and anything that is done to save somebody should be rewarded.
And the example of doctors helping in accidents: in many states it is a requirement of law that they DO help.
Yes, not only would Good Samaritan laws protect this lifegaurd, the real issue is privatization of emergency responders such as this. If it had been the city managing the lifeguards then this probably would never have happened because they have the resources to ensure protection for all parties involved. I seriously can't believe more people are not outraged by this. What's next, hiring private companies to provide municipal police protection, or firemen? What a joke. I can see it now, "the officer didn't respond to the gang rape 911 call because it was a block outside of his patrol route". Wake up! the U.S. seems to be lost right now, in terms of our general human conscience. We put profits ahead of human lives, and believe that everything is going to be okay. What a joke...
You do your best to save the life than deal with the legal issues later , if they tried to sue the rescuer I'd say shoot the lawyers who try to sue him !! Or just toss them in the deep end !
His job was to look after the swimmers on that beach. It's what he was hired to do.
Obviously, he's got his @!$%#ing priorities all backwards. Spin all you like. Doesn't change the basic problem here, which is corporate interference in public infrastructure. He should be fired, and the lifeguards should be employed directly by the city.
These privatization schemes have only one apparent purpose and that is to fill private pockets with taxpayer cash. Let's eliminate the worthless middleman who obviously will let people drown rather than do his job.
What a crock! Did you sneak into the gene pool while the lifeguard was looking the other way?
"Of course I saw him drowning, but had to look the other way and pretend I didn't, because he was out of my zone." lifeguard
Ok, he didn't see him drowning. People on the beach came running up and told him there was a problem he couldn't see from his post. By the time he got down there, the person was already out of the water, so he essentially did nothing useful other than what anyone with basic water CPR/first aid training would do. Well, other than abandoning his post that is and putting everyone there at risk.
The man did right, but the bigger question is why didn't the city council review the procedures of this contract prior to hiring someone with such an archaic set of rules of savings someones life?
The city council should be held responsible in my opinion.
Liability exposure is what is driving the contractor's policies. The real issue here is America's obsession with suing others as a get rick quick scheme.
For example, lawyers would always advise doctors not to get out of their car to help an accident victim.
The state should have a Good Samaritan law in place which would prevent lawsuits for attempting to rescue. It isn't America's obsession to stop lifeguards from doing their jobs, but America's obsession to stop doctors from leaving scissors and gauze inside of a surgery patient.
When someone is dying, all rules go out the door, don't you think? What would you have done? Let him die just to save your own job?
Arguably the dumbest reason to fire someone EVER!
This story looks like it was written by a third-grader, in addition to which the last sentence is missing the word "the" -- that's what you get when you outsource your editing to China.
In addition to poor editing, Susan Ellis was said to give no comment, and then she is quoted for two more paragraphs. I was always under the impression "no comment' ment no comment.
The Elllis being quoted was Jeff Ellis. Unless Susan is a 'he'.
Seriously poor journalism though. Mentioning one "Ellis" and and then quoting the other is just plain bad writing.
Kudos for the young man for having decency and conviction to do the right thing. Having integrity is much better than keeping a job and knowingly letting a human being drown. How the company owners can take company policy over doing what's right and a selfless humanitarian action is unbelieveable! Was he out of the zone he was getting paid to protect? Yes, but isn't a human life worth that? He didn't leave to go get a slurpee or talk to a girl, he was saving a life, people were screaming for help. The guilt he would have felt had the man drowned was far worse that getting fired would have been. Ellis is obviously a soul-less man who should be glad it wasn't his relative who needed help. I hope the former lifeguard gets a far better job offer from a good samaritan.