Actually Fire Departments in some areas used to be on a fee basis or privately contracted, homes would have the department logo on there home, eventually cities decided that was a bad idea , go figure
Lol when my friend and I quit our jobs at a car dealership, about 6 other people quit later that week as well. Everyone was just waiting for someone to make the first move away from that place
As a former lifeguard, the person who is supposed to go in for the rescue is ALWAYS the first person who notices the danger. It doesn't matter whose zone the victim is in. If you see something, blow the whistle and jump in. This private company's policy is absolute nonsense, and I respect these guards for leaving.
I could imagine there being a work insurance issue if they leave their station but forbidding them from leaving it if necessary is a very stupid conclusion to that problem
@@gildahobbs8829it is for sure a case of hr and corporate overdoing their paperwork. They checked all the boxes and then some not realising that they do nothing outside of a theoretical concept. Because for a business in theory it makes all the sense to have lines drawn to not cross, however, anyone with half a brain would realise if they hired someone appropriate for being a LIFEguard, they would go outside the zone to save someone. But, pencil pushers spent to much time inside worried about money and not once saw the real world action of their rules and laws.
@@CelabWilliams-gb6rm Not to mention, even if there are serious laws preventing someone from leaving their zone they fail to realize the implications of what would happen if someone died and the lifeguard company did NOTHING.
@@parteuy3434 We do, it's mentioned in the video itself. >JEM owner Jeff Ellis, who also founded Jeff Ellis & Associates, based in Ocoee, Fla., apologized to Lopez, both in a phone call and publically _[sic],_ in a statement posted on the company’s Website. He is currently overseeing an investigation of the incident and a review of policies. The company has offered to rehire Lopez and two other guards who were fired for standing by him, but so far Lopez has declined the offer. He has accepted the key to the city of Hallandale Beach. >Six guards quit over the episode, and the story was picked up in both national and international media, including CNN, the Huffington Post and Fox and Friends. There’s also been much discussion via social media, including AI Connect and the AI Linkedin Group.
@@ilas5629 True, because really the part where the person was drowning was outside the area. But I think for some people it could be traumatizing to watch a person screaming for help and then just nobody coming to rescue.
Were is the mayor of the city to give that young man his key to the city. Why didn't any politician come in and say anything good about this young man.
I was a lifeguard for 4 years. Every time I had to save a life was in an area that wasn't mine. But a life is a life, and I don't care about imaginary lines o the sand.
Why on earth are private companies providing life guards? Surely it's a public beach and should have publicly funded lifeguards to patrol the entire beach! At least, that is how it works in Australia. We also have volunteer lifeguards in areas that can't afford paid council lifeguards. But then I saw the beach in the video is in Florida, US. So have people there voted to privatize beaches? Or just public services?
Because the wrong scalpel was used to cut the patient's "..." as the surgeon thought it would better for this situation even tho the Surgery was a success, we can't allow that in out clinic.
The issue is more complex than you might expect. They were a private company contracted to be lifeguards at a specific location for example the beach in front of a hotel. The person drowning was on the public beach outside of the area they were contracted to monitor, so rendering aid required leaving the area you are contracted to protect unguarded to go somewhere you aren’t contracted to protect. Now just you leaving the clients area unguarded is enough for them to sue your company and you. If while you are away someone in the area you are supposed to be protecting drowns it gets even worse. It’s the same in the private security field, if a car wrecks and catches fire, or there’s an active shooter next door to where you are assigned you will be violating your contract to do anything. So in all likelihood you will be fired if you intervene. Of course there are things worth being fired over…
@@missyrose2154 I don’t disagree, and personally I am more than willing to lose a job in that scenario, but what they should do and what every company actually does is unfortunately very different.
!00% Agree. No way I could just watch someone die knowing I could help them. Fire me, I'll love my job but save my humanity. What a disgrace of a company too BTW.
@Max Gill that's what i was thinking... they "made a pact to save lives instead of their jobs" by discouraging people from working there and all resigning. Big brain move.
@Max Gill Its a protest. If they all resigned in protest there might be a change in rules however small a chance. If they stayed on like nothing happened that slim chance of a change of rules becomes almost non existent. As long as people support bad rules because of apathy bad rules will continue to exist unless people show their dissent.
Joe Lane he was using a past tense because the pact was made before the incident happened so they collectively decided before it happens "if" it does, then we walk out. That's why the word if is used
Wow, I thought this was somehow recent news until spotting your comment, I did not expect 11 years. I hope he and the quitting lifeguards are doing well as well! What a disturbing reason to fire a lifeguard, he's a hero.
@@bradgarrett7159 Yeah somehow I didn't notice that when clicking lol. All the news videos I was watching in a row prior to this one were like 3 months old at most, so my mind got thrown for a sec seeing a comment saying "11 years".
Nah, it won't work. Besides the phrase "if everybody banded together".... Is always synonymous with socialism so...... For this kinds of causes yeah i think everybody would almost sign up but for other purposes for example socialism..... Doubt it
Imagine the guilt that would have been eating at him for the rest of his life if he had allowed someone to drown just because of company rules. In the long run, he definitely made the right decision. Good man!
@Thunder'sDud Imagine if it had been you in the water, not being allowed to have been rescued-that would have been one excruciating death for you. But that's okay, eh? Right, got it.
Mummified - exactly and if that happened the boss would flip flopped and said something like - I would never fire someone for saving a mans life regardless of the rules
@@rebeccahicks2392 dont know that .but my father is expert swimmer he told me once no matter how strong the current am caught in.. i can always come on surface .. Maybe one can go underwater and when the strong current stop they can come up?
I really love that his co-workers stood up for this lifeguard. I know the company is now apologizing to him, but I don't think it's because they're sorry. It's because they are embarrassed by the negative publicity.
This happens way too commonly now. I myself got fired for putting out an apartment fire and pulling a man out of the fire who had passed out from the smoke. My boss fired me the next day because " You're not a fireman" So apparently I'm supposed to just let people die....
God bless the helpers in the world ❤ How dare these people in power discourage human beings from helping a fellow neighbour! May they be held accountable!!!
Toby The Phantom There's a line between following the rules and just plain fucking stupid If someone's life is at stake, just break the rules and save him.
So that's why the stuff on aisle 5 at Walmart was on Clarence it had after birth on it it wasn't peppermint candy cane Christmas gunk well congratulations a penny saved is a penny earned 👏
There's a lot of stupidity like this going on, because Florida's legal system is supportive of the most ridiculous abuses of employees. I'm surprised the news reported it.
A life guard living to his name. I don't know where these guys are today but if they need help it's our duty as a society to provide for them, we need such people
He did his job he got fired but if he didn’t do his job and let the man drown he would’ve probably get fired as well so this so I’m confused on this rule
@@ComputerJunkie00 Good that Tommy rejected, honestly a company that had a policy like that in the first probably only changed it because of the horrible publicity it got.
This is unfortunately not really the fault of the company, but rather the fault of the system for allowing people to be sued for being good samaritans.
The lifeguard saved the drowning man out of good nature. The company fired him coz they don't want to get sued. However, a reasonable person would bite what he could chew. There's a small zone assigned because whoever made the policy knew that lifeguards aren't superman. What if you save the guy outside of the zone, but when you return, someone inside the zone is drowning? You would've saved the guy who swam at his own risk, and be unfair to the guy who would not have swam if not for the nearby lifeguard. If you were the guy who drowned in the safe zone, would you find the lifeguard's action to be acceptable? Answer on your own, it's just a rhetoric.
@@biggiganticbones also, if a person died in a safe zone when lifeguard rescuing others one , family of died person will sue the company of millions and most likely court say pay them as your duty is to protect within safe zone not outside... So if i am the decision maker i would fire him as well i cant risk my company for anyone life
@@biggiganticbones Life is not perfect you can't always save everyone. Ignoring someone dying just on the off chance that another person might start drowning in your zone during the time you are saving that person, is literal insanity. You don't ignore something that is really happening for a mere possibility of what could happen.
I was a pool guard a few years back. I used to do rescues both in and out of the water, from a kid going into the deepend, to helping someone with heatstroke. It didnt matter if I was on break, as soon as someone was in danger, if was my god damn duty to help them. This guy was a true freaking guard, putting someone's safety above his job.
Yeah huge respect but the also just jeopardized the company it's called Liability Insurance liability anything that they do the company is responsible for
@@dramafreak7122 by that logic, the company will consider liability more important than human lives. You have any idea how disgusting and immoral that is?
“Liability issues” = Fear that the company could be fined. Money was more important to the company than a man’s life. Respect for all the lifeguards that did the right thing.
@Carrot Muffins The chances of that happening would have been about one in a ... billion? While the chances of the man dieing (had he not been rescued) was one in ... one? No lifeguard with even just a shred of morality would have stood by and watched a man drown in that situation. So, in the end, if we’re honest, it was a financial decision to fire the lifeguard. (“Better to let a man drown than to risk a one-in-a-billion chance of their being financially liable for another man’s death on their side of the beach.”)
@Karabas TV Much logic, perhaps, for an hour. But at the end of the day, are thousands of people applauding their actions ... or are they shaking their heads in disgust? It probably didn’t do much for their brand image.
@@robertdobie2544 It's bad for their brand image because the lifeguard went outside the bounds. If the lifeguard had stayed in the bounds, it wouldn't have been so bad. If they made no repercussions, it could keep happening. THen one day if someone was in trouble on both sides of the line at the same time, the company would be in a big problem. Basically, the lifeguard is the one who put the company in a bad place. Security guards have to stay in their area. There is no reason to think lifeguards should be different.
@@AshiStarshade So, what you are saying is that, had you been the lifeguard on duty, you would have run over to the border of your side of the beach. Then stopped. Then, watched as the man drowned. While explaining to the drowning man that, “One day if there were two people drowning at the same time, and I wasn’t on my side of the beach, the company would be in a big problem.” Well, okay. I suppose that would have made the drowning man feel a little better, at least. But what if the drowning man had been six inches across the border? Would you still have turned a blind eye?
How they want the lifeguards to act: 1st lifeguard: Ah yes that man appears to be doing the DEATH 2nd lifeguard: why it seems so 1st:should we help him? 2nd: and risk losing our jobs? 1st: there are somethings you got to do no matter what is the rules what only matters is what you feel in your heart and thats between you and god... 2nd:wow... 1st:good thing were atheists! Everybody at the beach:HARHARHARHARHAR Guy doing the DEATH's spirit:HAR...HAR...HAR
Just fyi I was on the beach and that kid had nothing to do with saving the mans life, he was already pulled out of water by the time he arrived. And he stayed in the wrong section even after the right lifeguard arrived(like 30 seconds after him) what if someone was drowning in the station he left....
@@ryantheallknowing3863 If someone was drowning in the station he left, then bystanders will ask other stations just like how this first one started...
But I dont understand where they are getting this "liability" thing from as many states have "Good Samaritan" laws which protect people from such things.
@@Flakjacket96 It probably has to do with insurance/liability. When you run a business you have to deal with the liabilities and they dictate what you can or cannot do to maintain coverage. It's the unfortunate reality. It's like why you have to clock out at many jobs on breaks if you leave the premises because they are liable for your actions and it doesn't fall under their liability insurance. Going past that post while on the clock exposed the company to uncovered liability for himself and actions from the victim due to not complying with a contract. Glad everything worked out and hope the young man finds another job or another contract for the area is crafted.
For those wondering.. Tomas and friends were offered jobs back but they refused. Publico backlash is a hell of a thing for a company. Tomas was given a key to the city at an event in his honor where the mayor also announced that they would no longer be using that company. He was also thanked in person by the man he saved a Mr. Maksim Samartsev from Estonia. "All guards would have done the same thing. I think all of us deserve this. All I did was do what I supposed to do." - Tomas Lopez.
Well if a patient has a DNR order or wants to stop treatment to die on their own terms and a doctor decides to save them against their against their wishes then yeah a doctor should at least be scolded for that.
Patrick Misunderstands the Internet The equivalent would be more like a doctor getting arrested for saving a patient that he didn’t have authorization to save. Like inadequate paperwork or something like that.
Yes, and there are doctors who will not stop at the scene of an accident to help because they might get sued if someone dies. It happens. You can blame the litigiousness of the public and the policies of insurance companies for this sort of thing.
@@WalterLiddy True, and also, When there are doctors who actually stopped and attempted to help and succeeded, yet developed a problem that could potentially be a reason to sue the doctor :/
They probably have that rule because if someone else is drowning in the area the lifeguard was supposed to protect, then the corporation can be sued for 10s of millions of dollars
@@futsk01 maybe so with our leadership being of low standards. but these young men have set an example of just how far above the bar standard they are at least by his and his friends actions.THEY WILL LEAVE NO MAN OR WOMEN BEHIND. unlike some leaders we know.
I hope you're speaking of _politicians_ in leadership positions, because if you mean men who are leaders _in general_ (and that means _any_ positions of leadership), I challenge your theory and defy you to provide real-world examples that _most men_ indeed fit your blanket statement. Further, I posit that you don't know enough men in positions of leadership to extrapolate even a _semi-accurate_ cross-section of the men who fall under what you speculate, and that your theory is based on anecdotal evidence and the men _you_ interact with, as opposed to empirical data.
Inexplicable. I once helped a grandmother and little grandchild being unable to return to shore. Rather strong currents where they had decided to swim and I knew that help was needed. I had a diving floater with me, and we returned safely to land 2 miles away. No fighting currents I told this lady, and little one was happy just to hold on to my floater. If Tommy put his life on the line to save someone he should be rewarded, nevermind being fired.
@@LowenKoniig Exactly if he didn't save the person, then the boss would still blame him for not doing his job. That's the sad human nature, which cannot be changed.
Man not only did that guy choose to save a life instead of save face, but so did his peers. I'm proud of all of them for choosing to be human over employees.
it would make sense if they fired a lifeguard for patrolling that area instead of the area under their jurisdiction, but firing him after he SUCCESSFULLY saved someone is insane
Nah, they're like the handles on grocery bags, there for show. Once you need their support they hang back as your dinner drowns in a broken bottle of red wine.
@@elliotthill7008 it has nothing to do with this case, the job says lifeguard, if you arent allowed to save life then why bother being a "lifeguard". And your statement is stupid, if you can save someone's life then you do it, stop fucking following the rules all the time, try being a human, not a robot who always follows orders and rules
Shame on the company. If an employee of an office left their desk to go save a life, no way in the world would they ever get fired for leaving their desk. I hope he got a better job afterwards and same for his coworkers. They joined the lifeguard to save lives, not to watch people drown.
theyre not covered beyond the flags, dont you get it. Thats just how business works. The lifeguard did the right thing, but he also failed to follow the rules of his job.
