Do you remember Blade Runner? In the beginning of the film we are introduced to the Voight-Kampff empathy test. Leon got a little upset with the questions. So, how would you do if you took the test? Are you sure you would answer correctly?

You are a lifeguard at the beach and assigned to a certain area. Someone comes up to you and says a person is drowning 1500 outside of your zone. Would you run to aide the person or would you call 911?

I'm sure many of you have heard about the lifeguard in Florida who saved a man who was out of his patrol zone and was promptly fired. There has been a lot of coverage over it and the latest word is he was offered his job back but he declined. One aspect of the story that was missing from the national news on the story is the Voight-Kampff like test given to some employees after the incident.

Some of you may have heard that a few of the lifeguards quit because of the incident. Well, that's part of the story. Two people are known to have quit because they were asked the question I put up. It was this companies Voight-Kampff test, if you will, after the incident. Employees were told if they answered wrong they would be fired. OK, let me clarify about the wrong answer by using the exact quote from the local Florida paper on the incident:

At least two other lifeguards said they were fired the next day after being asked if they would have taken similar action.

"They sat me down and told me that my answer will determine if I get to keep my job or not," said Travis Madrid, 20. "When I told him I would do the same thing, they told me I was dismissed."

Just like the Voight-Kampff test, the question was designed to find mindless drones that would back the company policy. I'm sure you might ask 'why not lie' but I can assure you one they answered the question they would have been given a sworn affidavit to sign, so if they did violate policy they had something legal on file to justify the firing.

There is a whole lot wrong with this story from the corporate end. While I was putting this together I saw another news report about the lifeguard. It turns out this incident had similarities to another movie; The Running Man. Do you remember why Arnold was framed for the massacre? He had orders to fire on innocent people, because of policy if you want to stretch things a bit, and he refused. He was ordered to shoot and he refused again. In the case of the young lifeguard, I found out from the news broadcast that he didn't just run over to help the man without telling anyone what was going on. He called another lifeguard to tell them what has happening. The supervisor heard the call and told the lifeguard to call 911 and not to leave is post. The lifeguard said he could see the person in the water and the supervisor again told him not to leave his post. The lifeguard did what he thought was right and left his post.

Like the corporations in The Running Man, the lifeguard company and the city have been trying to cover up and smooth over the incident. That's why they were asking the questions to get statements on file to show the lifeguards knew of the policy and they could fire them if need be. Another important fact brought up in the broadcast, which they confirmed with a comment from city officials, was that initially the lifeguard company let the impression with the public seem like they were hired by the resort and the 'unprotected' area was under control of the city. It turns out the city hired the company, not the resort, so now there is questions as to why the hotel part, with the expensive guest and amenities, deserved a lifeguard service while the public beach didn't have lifeguard service.

The covering their asses aspect of this story has been the most unsettling to me. The owner of the lifeguard company never acknowledges any wrongdoing. His answers are steeped in policy talk. Even when it came time for the lifeguard to get his job offered back, when the PR mess was bad, the owner left it to his HR department to call the lifeguard up. I would think if he had any decency he would have called the lifeguard up personally. Of course now everything is under internal investigation and punishment might be given to supervisors. I have a feeling this will be swept under the rug, just like they tried to do with the test.

I wonder how much money the company is getting from the city? All the owner talked about was liability in the article. This wasn't some statement he issued; he went to the local newspaper a few days later and did a sit down interview and he expressed while he thought the lifeguard did a good thing, there were liability issues. I love how he says this, reducing the drowning man to an unfortunate bystander. Oh, and guess how much the lifeguards are paid? If you thought $25 and hour you would be wrong. Not $15 and not $10. They are paid $8.25 an hour. The people sitting in an office, making much more than that, are telling people who have to face the public on a $8.25 and hour salary they can't help someone who is drowning 1500 feet away because the company might be liable. It is better to let the man drown than to have a procedure in place for better coverage.

This could be what we are looking at for the future of public safety. A few years ago it seemed odd to hear a story about a fire department that couldn't save a house because the owner hadn't paid some fire bill, then he couldn't give them the money while they stood there and watched his house burn down. Now we have a lifeguard fired for saving a life because it was out of his companies 'protection zone.' It's just sad.

<< PREVIOUS
NEXT >>

Copyright © Chaotic Fringe LLC. All rights reserved.

Tomas Lopez Isn't a Replicant So He Was Fired - July 05, 2012
Home | News | Entertainment | Blog | Podcast | IMVN | Everquest 2 | Links | Photos | V-Blog