" 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