No Beach Flags

[Kashmir]

Why can't the beach safety guy change flags?

My question is..... what is this beach safety guy doing during these months that there are no lifegaurds or beach flags? My understanding is he still gets paid. If this is true, what does he do to justify this? What is he protecting the beach from...... snow birds . Sounds to me like we ( as taxpayers ) are paying this guy just to hang around. Why can't he change the flags, after all he is beach safety isn't he?

 

[Creeklover]

Well i would think he gets to take some time off for his vacation as he more than likely works 7 days a week during the season and from what i have heard he has taught a lifeguard class at the high school for the students to get credit. I also think destin does something like this.
You would not retain someone in the Job position from year to year if it was not year round employment in the top job. Do you think all of the lifeguards come back year after year. NO they look for full time employment with Benifits.

I see his truck at the 393 fire station all the time or on the beach checking the surf conditions.

 

[Creeklover]

"Why can't the Beach Safety Guy Change the Flags"

It would take him haft a day if not longer to change 26 miles of beach flags. I think the SO could do a better job and faster job of changing them as they are on the beach with trucks and from what i have seen there is about 3 on duty every shift and every day.

 

[Matt J]

My question is..... what is this beach safety guy doing during these months that there are no lifegaurds or beach flags? My understanding is he still gets paid. If this is true, what does he do to justify this? What is he protecting the beach from...... snow birds . Sounds to me like we ( as taxpayers ) are paying this guy just to hang around. Why can't he change the flags, after all he is beach safety isn't he?

Creeklover is right. If he isn't employed year round he would be collecting tons of OT during the summer. You can't hire and then fire someone on a salary to avoid OT.

 

[wrobert]

While I am not a lawyer, I really believe the potential liability with this issue is enormous.

You are taking away something that was meant to warn people of a potential danger, yet the danger is still present. It was dangerous enough to do it in the first place, but now, with no environmental conditions changing, it is no longer a danger?

I understand that this decision was made jointly by the TDC and SWFD. I have not had the time to see if the BCC legal team was present since they will be the one defending this action in the future, if a tragedy were to occur.

 

[Matt J]

It really is a catch 22, leave the flags and they don't get changed someone gets swept out drowns and family sues. Pull the flags in and someone does the same thing because there is no warning.

 

[wrobert]

It really is a catch 22, leave the flags and they don't get changed someone gets swept out drowns and family sues. Pull the flags in and someone does the same thing because there is no warning.

True. And exactly what was said would happen when the BCC and others decided to be a nanny to the visitors. All you ever heard was we invited them, now we need to protect them. I am just curious as to what has changed. From these actions it is becoming apparent that life does have a value placed on it by government.