[[email protected]]

Many years ago I used to work for a property management company as a technician. One day they asked me to do a repair that was against building and safety codes. I refused, so they fired me. After I got fired I applied for unemployment. The EDD (Employment Development Department) told me that I wasn’t eligible to collect unemployment because I wasn’t laid-off but was fired. I appealed their decision to a judge who, although accepted the fact that I was asked to do something illegal, never-the-less found that I wasn’t qualified to receive unemployment because “the law says that I cannot receive unemployment if you are dismissed form a position”.
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1

[Home Guy]

wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

In article , Home Guy wrote:

wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...rd-fired/56018
178/1

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

ask Romney

[Evan[_3_]]

On Jul 4, 7:04*pm, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi...

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

Its called "privatization" where a government will "outsource"
functions which are seasonal or difficult to manage the low
skill high turnover positions to "vendors" who operate such
services under a contract...

Services commonly outsourced in this way:

Custodial/Janitorial/Building Maintenance
Food Service/Cafeteria
Trash Collection
Excise Tax Collection
Building Security Guards/Watchmen

If you think this isn't something that is happening in your
area, you should investigate whether your local school
district still has its own in house food service workers
or have they been outsourced to a vendor ?

[Tony Hwang]

Evan wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:04 pm, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi...

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

Its called "privatization" where a government will "outsource"
functions which are seasonal or difficult to manage the low
skill high turnover positions to "vendors" who operate such
services under a contract...

Services commonly outsourced in this way:

Custodial/Janitorial/Building Maintenance
Food Service/Cafeteria
Trash Collection
Excise Tax Collection
Building Security Guards/Watchmen

If you think this isn't something that is happening in your
area, you should investigate whether your local school
district still has its own in house food service workers
or have they been outsourced to a vendor ?

Hi,How about outsourcing president's job to you?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 5:06:33 PM UTC-7, Evan wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:04*pm, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi....

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

Its called "privatization" where a government will "outsource"
functions which are seasonal or difficult to manage the low
skill high turnover positions to "vendors" who operate such
services under a contract...

Services commonly outsourced in this way:

Custodial/Janitorial/Building Maintenance
Food Service/Cafeteria
Trash Collection
Excise Tax Collection
Building Security Guards/Watchmen

If you think this isn't something that is happening in your
area, you should investigate whether your local school
district still has its own in house food service workers
or have they been outsourced to a vendor ?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:43:48 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Many years ago I used to work for a property management company as a technician. One day they asked me to do a repair that was against building and safety codes. I refused, so they fired me. After I got fired I applied for unemployment. The EDD (Employment Development Department) told me that I wasn’t eligible to collect unemployment because I wasn’t laid-off but was fired. I appealed their decision to a judge who, although accepted the fact that I was asked to do something illegal, never-the-less found that I wasn’t qualified to receive unemployment because “the law says that I cannot receive unemployment if you are dismissed form a position”.
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1

[Theodore Edward Stosterone]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:04:44 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to patrol
is a PRIVATE beach. The lifeguard company is well within it's rights
to limit the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Now, firing hte guy is another story.

-TES

[Pol Pot]

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1


Yah, and considering the trade defecit with China is growing out of control, we'll soon be owned and ruled by Chinese corporations.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

[Doug[_14_]]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:22:24 -0400, "Pol Pot"
wrote:


What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1


Yah, and considering the trade defecit with China is growing out of control, we'll soon be owned and ruled by Chinese corporations.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html


That's okay because then we can Nationalize and take it back free of
charge.

[harry]

On Jul 5, 3:42*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:22:24 -0400, "Pol Pot"
wrote:



What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi....

Yah, and considering the trade defecit with China is growing out of control, we'll soon be owned and ruled by Chinese corporations.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

That's okay because then we can Nationalize and take it back free of
charge.

That is the sort of thing banana republics do. And socialist ones.
(Think Castro.)
Is that the way you're heading?

[CRNG]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:43:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in Re The
first time I ever got fired::

Many years ago I used to work for a property management company as a technician. One day they asked me to do a repair that was against building and safety codes. I refused, so they fired me. After I got fired I applied for unemployment. The EDD (Employment Development Department) told me that I wasn’t eligible to collect unemployment because I wasn’t laid-off but was fired. I appealed their decision to a judge who, although accepted the fact that I was asked to do something illegal, never-the-less found that I wasn’t qualified to receive unemployment because “the law says that I cannot receive unemployment if you are dismissed form a position”.
What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1


"Two other lifeguards have quit in protest."

Good move on their part, because if they had watched someone drown and
did nothing because it was against company policy to live their
section, my guess is that they would have had some serious personal
liability. Company policy not being a defense.

[h[_11_]]

??? Seriously? Neither I nor anyone I know has EVER been fired from a job.
Seriously, the "FIRST TIME"? You've been fired multiple times? Seriously?
Wow, just wow. You've either chosen lousy employers or you need to fix
whatever it is about yourself that gets you canned. And admitting, publicly
that you've been fired more than once? Wow.

[The Daring Dufas[_8_]]

On 7/5/2012 5:43 AM, h wrote:
??? Seriously? Neither I nor anyone I know has EVER been fired from a job.
Seriously, the "FIRST TIME"? You've been fired multiple times? Seriously?
Wow, just wow. You've either chosen lousy employers or you need to fix
whatever it is about yourself that gets you canned. And admitting, publicly
that you've been fired more than once? Wow.


Not only that, I fire customers on a regular basis. They only play games
with my money once. ^_^

TDD

[bob haller]

Not only that, I fire customers on a regular basis. They only play games
with my money once. ^_^

TDD

I have a business and have fired customers too. Its rare but I have
never regretted any of those decisions......

some customers just arent worth the effort and will never be happy

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Home Guy wrote:
wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red/56018178/1

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

Because a private company can do any given job better and more cheaply than
a city worker. One would be hard-pressed to support the city doing anything.

What about the fire department, you might ask? Somewhere around 80% of
America's fire fighters are volunteers.

Okay, how about the police? In my town we probably have ten times the number
of private security guards as we do cops.

And so on: Road building, all physical plant construction, is done by
private companies. Trash collection is done by a private company.

And so on.

[Steve B[_13_]]

Every time I have got fired, or quit in my life, my life got better. My
wife quit her job last week. Already, she is cheerier, we are going to our
mountain cabin (haven't been there for a year because of her work), and she
has made contacts with companies she repped for previously, and has three
lines to sell. Plus, we now have the time to spend on our own flourishing
web based business.

I thank all those *******s for doing me a favor. Firing SOME people really
gives them incentive. And it frees them up from making a crappy living so
they can really make some money.

Steve

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I fired one, a couple minutes ago. I'm comfortable with that decision.
Worried about price, lives in a big house, got a problem that appears to be
a PIA to diagnose. Then, he saw me cough, and asked me to wash my hands
before doing anything else.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:2de7d04d-9cf3-4aaa-966c-

I have a business and have fired customers too. Its rare but I have
never regretted any of those decisions......

some customers just arent worth the effort and will never be happy

[harry]

On Jul 5, 12:42*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 7/5/2012 5:43 AM, h wrote:

??? Seriously? Neither I nor anyone I know has EVER been fired from a job.
Seriously, the "FIRST TIME"? You've been fired multiple times? Seriously?
Wow, just wow. You've either chosen lousy employers or you need to fix
whatever it is about yourself that gets you canned. And admitting, publicly
that you've been fired more than once? Wow.

Not only that, I fire customers on a regular basis. They only play games
with my money once. ^_^

TDD

So you get lots of non-payers then Duf?

[Home Guy]

Theodore Edward Stosterone wrote:

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public
beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to
patrol is a PRIVATE beach.

Wrong.

It was a public beach.

Some people came over to the life guard and said someone was in
trouble. He followed them over to an area that was signed as
"unsupervised area" that was a couple-hundred feet beyond his patrol
zone. The guard may not have known initially they were taking him over
to that area when they went to get him.

The city that hired the life-guard company issued a statement that they
value the life and safety of everyone on the beach regardless what part
of the beach they're on.

The lifeguard company is well within it's rights to limit
the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Again, it wasn't a private beach.

And if the guard didn't respond to this guy (because he was outside the
zone) and if they guy died, then the family could or would probably sue
the city and the company for negligence or "wrongful death".

It's simply not smart to put people (life guards) in situations like
this, but this is par for the course for you Americans.

[bob haller]

On Jul 5, 7:11*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Theodore Edward Stosterone wrote:
And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public
beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to
patrol is a PRIVATE beach.

Wrong.

It was a public beach.

Some people came over to the life guard and said someone was in
trouble. *He followed them over to an area that was signed as
"unsupervised area" that was a couple-hundred feet beyond his patrol
zone. *The guard may not have known initially they were taking him over
to that area when they went to get him.

The city that hired the life-guard company issued a statement that they
value the life and safety of everyone on the beach regardless what part
of the beach they're on.

The lifeguard company is well within it's rights to limit
the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Again, it wasn't a private beach.

And if the guard didn't respond to this guy (because he was outside the
zone) and if they guy died, then the family could or would probably sue
the city and the company for negligence or "wrongful death".

It's simply not smart to put people (life guards) in situations like
this, but this is par for the course for you Americans.

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer cares
to work for them

the communities using the contract company should fire them, to send
the message firing workers for saving someones life is pure stupid

[Jack Klompus]

On 07/06/2012 12:50 AM, bob haller wrote:

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer cares
to work for them


I suspect the life guard will own the life guard company when the
lawyers get through.

[Home Guy]

Jack Klompus wrote:

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer
cares to work for them

I suspect the life guard will own the life guard company when the
lawyers get through.

Not likely.

The life guard seemed to be in his early 20's, spoke very good english
but is probably first-generation American of hispanic origin (so he nor
his family probably don't have enough money to pursue this legally).

It might have been some sort of violation of California labor or
employment laws to terminate his employment the way they did, but
because they offered to hire him back - and he refused - then he
probably has no case.

I wonder if he can collect unemployment insurance - given the very odd
and complicated way that his employment ended. Normally you can't
collect UI if you quit your job (at least you can't here in Canada) -
and it could be argued that he essentially quit.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
Jack Klompus wrote:

On 07/06/2012 12:50 AM, bob haller wrote:

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer cares
to work for them


I suspect the life guard will own the life guard company when the
lawyers get through.

Doubt it. FL is an at-will state and he did violate policies and
procedures in place at the time. While it is a PR mess, I doubt it would
be a legal mess. If he files, the only way he'd get any money is if he
agreed to take less than the costs of defending it.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

[The Daring Dufas[_8_]]

On 7/5/2012 12:20 PM, harry wrote:
On Jul 5, 12:42 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 7/5/2012 5:43 AM, h wrote:

??? Seriously? Neither I nor anyone I know has EVER been fired from a job.
Seriously, the "FIRST TIME"? You've been fired multiple times? Seriously?
Wow, just wow. You've either chosen lousy employers or you need to fix
whatever it is about yourself that gets you canned. And admitting, publicly
that you've been fired more than once? Wow.

Not only that, I fire customers on a regular basis. They only play games
with my money once. ^_^

TDD

So you get lots of non-payers then Duf?


It depends, being a dishonest crook cuts across cultural lines but it's
usually those of Middle Eastern origin who's religious tenets permit
cheating anyone outside their faith such as The Infidel like me. I've
found that Middle Eastern Christians have a completely different moral
compass which guides them through life on a much saner course. ^_^

TDD

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

Most of my non paying customers have been restaurant owners. And white
people. Might be white Muslim, not sure. The referral company that still
owes me a pile of money is Greek owned. Orthodox Christian Greeks, too.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

So you get lots of non-payers then Duf?


It depends, being a dishonest crook cuts across cultural lines but it's
usually those of Middle Eastern origin who's religious tenets permit
cheating anyone outside their faith such as The Infidel like me. I've
found that Middle Eastern Christians have a completely different moral
compass which guides them through life on a much saner course. ^_^

TDD

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Jul 5, 7:11*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Theodore Edward Stosterone wrote:
And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public
beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to
patrol is a PRIVATE beach.

Wrong.

It was a public beach.

Some people came over to the life guard and said someone was in
trouble. *He followed them over to an area that was signed as
"unsupervised area" that was a couple-hundred feet beyond his patrol
zone. *The guard may not have known initially they were taking him over
to that area when they went to get him.

The city that hired the life-guard company issued a statement that they
value the life and safety of everyone on the beach regardless what part
of the beach they're on.

The lifeguard company is well within it's rights to limit
the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Again, it wasn't a private beach.

And if the guard didn't respond to this guy (because he was outside the
zone) and if they guy died, then the family could or would probably sue
the city and the company for negligence or "wrongful death".

It's simply not smart to put people (life guards) in situations like
this, but this is par for the course for you Americans.

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer cares
to work for them

the communities using the contract company should fire them, to send
the message firing workers for saving someones life is pure stupid

Yeah, just close the beaches. That'll teach 'em.

[Evan[_3_]]

On Jul 4, 9:37*pm, Theodore Edward Stosterone
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:04:44 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi...

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to patrol
is a PRIVATE beach. *The lifeguard company is well within it's rights
to limit the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Now, firing hte guy is another story.

-TES

That depends on the applicable state laws...

Some states establish an overriding "duty-to-care"
for trained lifesavers which requires those trained
and qualified to render aid to do so... The employer
can not nullify those requirements via any contract
entered into by offering a person employment...

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jul 4, 9:37*pm, Theodore Edward Stosterone
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:04:44 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi...

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to patrol
is a PRIVATE beach. *The lifeguard company is well within it's rights
to limit the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Now, firing hte guy is another story.

-TES

That depends on the applicable state laws...

Some states establish an overriding "duty-to-care"
for trained lifesavers which requires those trained
and qualified to render aid to do so... The employer
can not nullify those requirements via any contract
entered into by offering a person employment...

The employer may not be able to nullify those requirements but the (Florida)
employer is under no obligation to employ you either. Florida, as well as
*many* others are "at will" states. It is generally a good thing.

[Evan[_3_]]

On Jul 8, 11:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:









On Jul 4, 9:37*pm, Theodore Edward Stosterone
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:04:44 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi....

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to patrol
is a PRIVATE beach. *The lifeguard company is well within it's rights
to limit the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Now, firing hte guy is another story.

-TES

That depends on the applicable state laws...

Some states establish an overriding "duty-to-care"
for trained lifesavers which requires those trained
and qualified to render aid to do so... *The employer
can not nullify those requirements via any contract
entered into by offering a person employment...

The employer may not be able to nullify those requirements but the (Florida)
employer is under no obligation to employ you either. *Florida, as well as
*many* others are "at will" states. *It is generally a good thing.

Even in an at-will employment state, a employer can not
terminate you for fulfilling your legally required duty if you
are a trained lifesaver...

Someone who is suffering a heart attack can not be left
to die just because they are 10 feet across an imaginary
line in the sand if you are trained, qualified and equipped
to help them with an AED unit...

Same logic applies to someone drowning in water...

"At Will" allows for termination for many things, however
abiding by a legally required duty under the law is not one
of them and the employer will lose at the fair labor practices
hearing at which such a termination can be appealed...

Back pay, getting job back. etc. etc...

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 08:34:26 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jul 8, 11:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:









On Jul 4, 9:37*pm, Theodore Edward Stosterone
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:04:44 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:

What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see
how corporations are literally controlling your lives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-lifeguard-fi...

This is just another example of how your country is ****ing itself up
the ass.

And why is it that a private company is paid to patrol a public beach?

The news story I just saw said that the beach he was hired to patrol
is a PRIVATE beach. *The lifeguard company is well within it's rights
to limit the employees' range (and liability) to the private beach.

Now, firing hte guy is another story.

-TES

That depends on the applicable state laws...

Some states establish an overriding "duty-to-care"
for trained lifesavers which requires those trained
and qualified to render aid to do so... *The employer
can not nullify those requirements via any contract
entered into by offering a person employment...

The employer may not be able to nullify those requirements but the (Florida)
employer is under no obligation to employ you either. *Florida, as well as
*many* others are "at will" states. *It is generally a good thing.

Even in an at-will employment state, a employer can not
terminate you for fulfilling your legally required duty if you
are a trained lifesaver...

You're wrong again, but that'll never stop you. Florida has no exemption for
public policy. The employer is fully within his rights to terminate anyone,
for any reason, or indeed, no reason (usually the case).

Someone who is suffering a heart attack can not be left
to die just because they are 10 feet across an imaginary
line in the sand if you are trained, qualified and equipped
to help them with an AED unit...

Irrelevant.

Same logic applies to someone drowning in water...

Perhaps the same logic, but the fact is that this doesn't protect the
employee. The law gives the employer the right to terminate the employee
with, or without cause. He has *no* case.

"At Will" allows for termination for many things, however
abiding by a legally required duty under the law is not one
of them and the employer will lose at the fair labor practices
hearing at which such a termination can be appealed...

You're wrong, but I'm sure that won't stop you. Never has.

Back pay, getting job back. etc. etc...

Wrong again. Unless he's going to file a federal suit claiming "protected
minority status" as the reason for firing, there is no case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will...t#cite_note-18
Note the "public policy exceptions" section and the fact that Florida has none
(that cover this situation).

[HeyBub[_3_]]

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Even in an at-will employment state, a employer can not
terminate you for fulfilling your legally required duty if you
are a trained lifesaver...

You're wrong again, but that'll never stop you. Florida has no
exemption for public policy. The employer is fully within his rights
to terminate anyone, for any reason, or indeed, no reason (usually
the case).

Someone who is suffering a heart attack can not be left
to die just because they are 10 feet across an imaginary
line in the sand if you are trained, qualified and equipped
to help them with an AED unit...

Irrelevant.

Same logic applies to someone drowning in water...

Perhaps the same logic, but the fact is that this doesn't protect the
employee. The law gives the employer the right to terminate the
employee with, or without cause. He has *no* case.

"At Will" allows for termination for many things, however
abiding by a legally required duty under the law is not one
of them and the employer will lose at the fair labor practices
hearing at which such a termination can be appealed...

You're wrong, but I'm sure that won't stop you. Never has.

Back pay, getting job back. etc. etc...

Wrong again. Unless he's going to file a federal suit claiming
"protected minority status" as the reason for firing, there is no
case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will...t#cite_note-18
Note the "public policy exceptions" section and the fact that Florida
has none (that cover this situation).

I believe you're in error. "Employment at will" cannot nullify pubic policy.
Indeed, a violation of public policy is one of the ways even the most
stringent of contracts can be voided.

While it is true there is no legal obligation to come to the aid of someone
in distress, even by police, the reverse is not true. That is, declining to
provide life-saving aid to others cannot be part of a contract, for
employment or otherwise, and a sanction for so doing cannot be sustained.

The speciics of public policy need not be spelled out in detail. For
example, selling a used car in exchange for ten sex episodes is obviously
against public policy and a contract containing such a provision is void on
its face.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 16:27:58 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Even in an at-will employment state, a employer can not
terminate you for fulfilling your legally required duty if you
are a trained lifesaver...

You're wrong again, but that'll never stop you. Florida has no
exemption for public policy. The employer is fully within his rights
to terminate anyone, for any reason, or indeed, no reason (usually
the case).

Someone who is suffering a heart attack can not be left
to die just because they are 10 feet across an imaginary
line in the sand if you are trained, qualified and equipped
to help them with an AED unit...

Irrelevant.

Same logic applies to someone drowning in water...

Perhaps the same logic, but the fact is that this doesn't protect the
employee. The law gives the employer the right to terminate the
employee with, or without cause. He has *no* case.

"At Will" allows for termination for many things, however
abiding by a legally required duty under the law is not one
of them and the employer will lose at the fair labor practices
hearing at which such a termination can be appealed...

You're wrong, but I'm sure that won't stop you. Never has.

Back pay, getting job back. etc. etc...

Wrong again. Unless he's going to file a federal suit claiming
"protected minority status" as the reason for firing, there is no
case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will...t#cite_note-18
Note the "public policy exceptions" section and the fact that Florida
has none (that cover this situation).

I believe you're in error. "Employment at will" cannot nullify pubic policy.
Indeed, a violation of public policy is one of the ways even the most
stringent of contracts can be voided.

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the FL statute)
that shows there is no exception for "public policy". The employer is free to
employ, or not, at his discretion.

While it is true there is no legal obligation to come to the aid of someone
in distress, even by police, the reverse is not true. That is, declining to
provide life-saving aid to others cannot be part of a contract, for
employment or otherwise, and a sanction for so doing cannot be sustained.

There is no reason needed. That's the point. FL does have explicit
exceptions to the "at will" employment law, but this isn't one of them.
Without the exception, it holds, particularly if the legislature has
considered other exceptions.

The speciics of public policy need not be spelled out in detail. For
example, selling a used car in exchange for ten sex episodes is obviously
against public policy and a contract containing such a provision is void on
its face.

The fact is that there is are explicit exceptions and this isn't one. It's
clearly the intent of the law to not exclude these sorts of issues.

It's not without its reason, either. When he left his beach, he left those
people unprotected. The liability boggles.

[Han]

" wrote in
:

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the FL
statute) that shows there is no exception for "public policy". The
employer is free to employ, or not, at his discretion.

Your link appears to refer to this:

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental
agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the
employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However,
this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing,
brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a
supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable
opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.
(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate
governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or
regulation by the employer.
(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.


Seems to me that the "employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has" ...
"(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation."

That seems to me to mean that the employer may not fire the employee
because the employee did something which the employer didn't like but
which prohibition violates the law, etc.

That in my reading is the exact opposite of what you claim. But them,
English is my second language. I hope you can explain to me what the
above really means.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected]]

On 09 Jul 2012 00:00:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the FL
statute) that shows there is no exception for "public policy". The
employer is free to employ, or not, at his discretion.

Your link appears to refer to this:

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental
agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the
employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However,
this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing,
brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a
supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable
opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.

Does this apply to the lifeguard who left his post?

(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate
governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or
regulation by the employer.

Does this?

(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.

Case closed.

Seems to me that the "employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has" ...
"(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation."

Show me the law or regulation that covers this situation.

That seems to me to mean that the employer may not fire the employee
because the employee did something which the employer didn't like but
which prohibition violates the law, etc.

How is remaining on the job a violation of the law.

That in my reading is the exact opposite of what you claim. But them,
English is my second language. I hope you can explain to me what the
above really means.

You're a leftist, who believes the government is here to help us, too.

[Han]

" wrote in
news
On 09 Jul 2012 00:00:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the
FL statute) that shows there is no exception for "public policy".
The employer is free to employ, or not, at his discretion.

Your link appears to refer to this:

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory
personnel action against an employee because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate
governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or
practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the
employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to
the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the
employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or
practice.

Does this apply to the lifeguard who left his post?

(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate
governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or
regulation by the employer.

Does this?

(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy,
or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.

Case closed.

Seems to me that the "employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has" ...
"(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy,
or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation."

Show me the law or regulation that covers this situation.

That seems to me to mean that the employer may not fire the employee
because the employee did something which the employer didn't like but
which prohibition violates the law, etc.

How is remaining on the job a violation of the law.

That in my reading is the exact opposite of what you claim. But them,
English is my second language. I hope you can explain to me what the
above really means.

You're a leftist, who believes the government is here to help us, too.

Yes, to the last statement. That doesn't mean scrutiny and review of
what gvmnt does isn't necessary.

Now let's look at the facts (as I know them).
Company has been contracted by the town for lifeguarding a beach.
Company hires people, but limits each one to a certain stretch of beach,
narrowly delineated. Contract with employees says that lifeguard cannot
leave his duty station/stretch of beach unless he has gotten a
replacement person to take over his duties. That's understandable in
view of liability for the company: don't leave the duty station without
getting a replacement.
Guard A is on duty at the end of the contracted beach. Beyond his
stretch of beach on 1 side, there is no lifeguard on duty. "A" at some
point notices that a person "P" a few yeards outside "A"'s area of
responsibility is in the water and in distress. Following his duty that
/if so able he should help a person in distress/ (that's the part that is
important - it's akin to the good samaritan laws) he goes to help "P".
Nobody gets really injured, whether or not due to the efforts of "A".
Company fires "A" because he left his duty station without getting a
replacement (see above). Stink erupts because of "/if so able he should
help a person in distress/", and company relents, but in the meantime,
"A" has decided he doesn't want to work for such a company, as did a
number of his colleagues.
The last portion is irrelevant for the determination whether or not the
firing was justified, of course, but helps to see what the general public
thinks.
Me thinks that the company cannot use the at-will law to fire "A" becaus
"A" is fulfilling the duty he sees to "/if so able he should help a
person in distress/".
Case closed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
Han wrote:


Now let's look at the facts (as I know them).
Company has been contracted by the town for lifeguarding a beach.
Company hires people, but limits each one to a certain stretch of beach,
narrowly delineated. Contract with employees says that lifeguard cannot
leave his duty station/stretch of beach unless he has gotten a
replacement person to take over his duties. That's understandable in
view of liability for the company: don't leave the duty station without
getting a replacement.
Guard A is on duty at the end of the contracted beach. Beyond his
stretch of beach on 1 side, there is no lifeguard on duty. "A" at some
point notices that a person "P" a few yeards outside "A"'s area of
responsibility is in the water and in distress. Following his duty that
/if so able he should help a person in distress/ (that's the part that is
important - it's akin to the good samaritan laws) he goes to help "P".
But Florida has no duty to respond law. A's area of responsibility
for in water and in distress IS ONLY A CERTAIN SECTION OF BEACH. This is
the difference. He may morally feel his has an obligation, but that
doesn't impact on whether or not he can be legally fired.


Nobody gets really injured, whether or not due to the efforts of "A".
Company fires "A" because he left his duty station without getting a
replacement (see above). Stink erupts because of "/if so able he should
help a person in distress/", and company relents, but in the meantime,
"A" has decided he doesn't want to work for such a company, as did a
number of his colleagues.
The last portion is irrelevant for the determination whether or not the
firing was justified, of course, but helps to see what the general public
thinks.
Me thinks that the company cannot use the at-will law to fire "A" becaus
"A" is fulfilling the duty he sees to "/if so able he should help a
person in distress/".
Case closed.
But he has no duty under law or public policy to respond outside of
the area he is being paid to respond to. So, the company is entirely
within their rights to can him. Now, whether or not they SHOULD have,
since the **** storm was foreseeable if anyone thought about it, is
another.... non-legal.. question altogether.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

[Han]

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:


Now let's look at the facts (as I know them).
Company has been contracted by the town for lifeguarding a beach.
Company hires people, but limits each one to a certain stretch of
beach, narrowly delineated. Contract with employees says that
lifeguard cannot leave his duty station/stretch of beach unless he
has gotten a replacement person to take over his duties. That's
understandable in view of liability for the company: don't leave the
duty station without getting a replacement.
Guard A is on duty at the end of the contracted beach. Beyond his
stretch of beach on 1 side, there is no lifeguard on duty. "A" at
some point notices that a person "P" a few yeards outside "A"'s area
of responsibility is in the water and in distress. Following his
duty that /if so able he should help a person in distress/ (that's
the part that is important - it's akin to the good samaritan laws) he
goes to help "P".
But Florida has no duty to respond law. A's area of responsibility
for in water and in distress IS ONLY A CERTAIN SECTION OF BEACH. This
is the difference. He may morally feel his has an obligation, but that
doesn't impact on whether or not he can be legally fired.


Nobody gets really injured, whether or not due to the efforts of "A".
Company fires "A" because he left his duty station without getting a
replacement (see above). Stink erupts because of "/if so able he
should help a person in distress/", and company relents, but in the
meantime, "A" has decided he doesn't want to work for such a company,
as did a number of his colleagues.
The last portion is irrelevant for the determination whether or not
the firing was justified, of course, but helps to see what the
general public thinks.
Me thinks that the company cannot use the at-will law to fire "A"
becaus "A" is fulfilling the duty he sees to "/if so able he should
help a person in distress/".
Case closed.
But he has no duty under law or public policy to respond outside
of
the area he is being paid to respond to. So, the company is entirely
within their rights to can him. Now, whether or not they SHOULD have,
since the **** storm was foreseeable if anyone thought about it, is
another.... non-legal.. question altogether.

As I interpret it, there does not need to be a "duty" to respond. It is
just that the fire at will law has an exception for cases just like this.
If I read the cited section of Florida law correctly. IMO the "rule"
does not have to explicitly say that I cannot let a person die. Common
decency requires that if I can help someone in distress, I should do so.
Again English is my second language, and I was brought up (decades ago)
to help people needing help if it was in my province to do so.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
Han wrote:

As I interpret it, there does not need to be a "duty" to respond. It is
just that the fire at will law has an exception for cases just like this.
If I read the cited section of Florida law correctly. IMO the "rule"
does not have to explicitly say that I cannot let a person die. Common
decency requires that if I can help someone in distress, I should do so.
Again English is my second language, and I was brought up (decades ago)
to help people needing help if it was in my province to do so.
But it doesn't because the law states things like asking you go
against a law, etc., are the only exceptions. If there is no legal duty
or requirement to do something in this case, or not do something in
others, then there is no public policy exception. While decency
requires you help someone in distress, that is not a protection against
being fired.
I think your main problem isn't that English is your second
language, but that law is your third (grin)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

[Han]

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

As I interpret it, there does not need to be a "duty" to respond. It
is just that the fire at will law has an exception for cases just
like this. If I read the cited section of Florida law correctly.
IMO the "rule" does not have to explicitly say that I cannot let a
person die. Common decency requires that if I can help someone in
distress, I should do so. Again English is my second language, and I
was brought up (decades ago) to help people needing help if it was in
my province to do so.
But it doesn't because the law states things like asking you go
against a law, etc., are the only exceptions. If there is no legal
duty or requirement to do something in this case, or not do something
in others, then there is no public policy exception. While decency
requires you help someone in distress, that is not a protection
against being fired.
I think your main problem isn't that English is your second
language, but that law is your third (grin)

Well, perhaps. I was also relying on this 1 liner on wikipedia:
"Common law protects an employee from retaliation if the employee
disobeys an employer on the grounds that the employer ordered him or her
to do something illegal or immoral. "
4th paragraph under 'Origins' on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Letting someone drown would be immoral, IMO.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid