<p>I am SURE that the General Counsel would be consulted with any case of multiple firings, especially if it impacted risk management. If you read Ralph Martin’s job description, you will see that risk management is in the first line of his job description. </p>
<p>And as you point out, the institution likely did not operate like a well-oiled machine, which is why they had to hire a new risk manager, conduct a massive audit, and fire people based on what they learned (when, as you well point out, there could have been, under different circumstances, other possibilities.) I bet Mr. Martin, having managed 1,100 other international lawyers (and having, among other things, specialized in "white collar defense’), and having been elected multiple times as Suffolk County District Attorney, is a very smart man.</p>
<p>So what if the new risk management people decided to shake things up? Ensuring that their RAs do the very monitoring they are supposed to do is an eminently reasonable thing. </p>
<p>You know, you don’t really know that no warnings were given. It’s possible that the same kinds of kids who blew off their responsibilities would be the same kind of kids who would blow off a reminder email. Who knows?</p>
<p>I have to agree with mini. With several firings, I would expect the general counsel to be consulted. For a single firing, probably not.</p>
<p>The biggest outrage, initially was that these students were going to suddenly be without housing. But that turned out not to be true. All were given the option of appealing, and most did so. The appeals process was not immediate, and those going through appeal have been allowed to remain in their rooms - I’m assuming they are also remaining on the job. Since the appeals are not being handled immediately, perhaps that was also part of the plan. Perhaps the idea was that those students who know they were not performing their duties would not appeal, and those who might have shirked their duties to some extent would appeal, but would be on notice to do their best for the remainder of the semester. Those from other areas of campus would also be put on notice that their jobs are on the line.</p>
<p>If in fact NEU waits to complete the full audit before they work through any appeals, and allows the students to remain on the job through the appeals, perhaps that will be seen as a strong position taken by the administration, and more effective than warnings. Yes it seems to have the same effect as a warning. </p>
<p>If there was in fact some triggering event, they can argue that the students in question were in fact fired, but allowed due process. That gives them immediate action, yet also allows them to get through the remainder of the semester.</p>
<p>I’m surprised you think that firings that result from a tragedy or a complaint would be evidence of a well oiled machine, while firings that result from someone doing their job, reviewing logs as a routine thing, and noticing and addressing troubling patterns of behavior before any incidents or complaints, would be evidence of trouble. I kind of think the opposite.</p>
<p>Curious jane, that really mischaracterizes the point I was making in my conversation with mini. That’s not what I think. I don’t mean my tone to imply I am challenging you, it’s just not what I meant in the context of that discussion. </p>
<p>And I responded with such surprise by mini’s blanket assurances that the GC is always consulted for every firing in an organization because I just don’t agree. It’s a huge job the GC has, and risk management & HR is only part of it, and that’s what delegation of responsibilities is for. I don’t doubt that the guy is very smart and competent, but there are so many facets to being a General Counsel, and not every detail of every department crosses his desk beforehand just because he’s smart & competent. Especially, as I am inclined to believe, if there was in fact no major, liability-inducing triggering event. If there was, as mini thinks, then yes, he may well have been consulted. But it’s not a foregone conclusion.</p>
<p>But the fact is we are all speculating about what triggered what, who knew what, who was the impetus behind things. And so because we all have different suspicions about what MAY have happened, we all therefore have different opinions about whether the firings were fair and just, or whether other methods may have been more appropriate to address the problems that… we are all just guessing about. </p>
<p>CTscoutsmom - the fired RAs have been relieved of their responsibilities. That’s why the remaining half of the staff has had to pick up the slack. And my understanding is that that in itself has been a mess, with lack of direction and leadership as to how to delegate and cover the void left by the fired RAs.</p>
Thanks , Mannix, for the response to the question I posed back in post # 216. (I was away from the forum this afternoon for Easter diiner.) I appreciate your answer, and you make some valid points.</p>
<p>“And I responded with such surprise by mini’s blanket assurances that the GC is always consulted for every firing in an organization because I just don’t agree.”</p>
<p>Never said any such thing. Go read again.</p>
<p>In case you need reminding: “I am SURE that the General Counsel would be consulted with any case of multiple firings, especially if it impacted risk management.”</p>
<p>So what I am getting from this thread is that many think that no matter if the audit trigger was bureaucratic bungling/new management chest-thumping, or an actual trigger (anything from near tragic event - of which the affected staff was somehow completely unaware - or merely a parent phoning to complain that their kid never sees RAs around), it was okay to fire half of one staff even before the full audit was complete. </p>
<p>Leaving the remainder of that staff stretched as thin as possible. </p>
<p>Even though it is possible that the complaint/trigger might have come from a completely different building (perhaps one where an RA’s rounds consist of poking his/her head outside his/her dorm room, since there is no way to monitor that otherwise). </p>
<p>So the staff that is easily monitored, and arguably has chosen the toughest part of campus to be an RA because there ARE multiple buildings, takes the fall for all 188 RAs on campus, even if the evidence of their guilt is faulty, and the audit hasn’t been completed yet. </p>
<p>And that firing was the absolute best option in these circumstances, with the potential to leave students paying thousands of dollars a year in tuition to their employer with nowhere to live (and no more money to pay for campus housing) in the weeks leading up to exams. </p>
<p>That’s the best way to conduct a business and inspire morale in an organization. That’s about it, right?</p>
<p>Yep. We do. We obviously don’t all think it’s necessary for everyone to have been audited, for the miscreants to be fired. Just like it isn’t necessary for everyone to have their speed monitored to have a speeder pulled over and ticketed. Just like it isn’t necessary for my friend to ensure that no one else in her office is downloading inappropriate material before firing the person who did. We have said that repeatedly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant to anything. By your logic, no one should ever be fired for cause because it leaves the remaining workers having to pick up the slack. True, but that’s life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s not what happened. They weren’t kicked out. That was your own early reporting / understanding, which turned out to be inaccurate. So talking about the “potential” of that happening when it’s not is irrelevant as well. There’s the “potential” that NEU would have burnt these kids at the stake, too, but, well, that’s a silly potential to talk about when it’s not happening.</p>
<p>The fact that the NEU’s action was so sudden and disruptive (the action itself carrying risks of various types as you and others keep mentioning) does indicate that there is likely a lot more of a “back story” that we are not being told.</p>
<p>A new risk management guru was brought in. It was found that part of the RAs’ duties - that helped to mitigate risk - wasn’t being completed. So they did something about it. That’s not “chest thumping.” That’s doing what they probably should have done a long time ago.</p>
<p>UCBAlumnus is right. It does sound plausible that there is some kind of a backstory - whether it’s an incident that occurred (and is being hushed up), or something else indicating that NEU has seen the light that it’s pretty darn important for RA’s to be doing their patrolling as they should be.</p>
<p>Pizza, I think that any new management could have dealt with the situation in a more fair manner. I certainly hope that is not what Northeastern Business and Law schools teach people – come into a new place, fire a few people, shake everyone up. Instead of issuing warnings, work with people, improve performance (or, my god, see if rules make sense). It makes no sense to me that an awful incident is being hushed up so well not a wiff of it has hit the school paper or websites.</p>
<p>We really don’t know the whole story, but even though you and I clearly have differing opinions, and I respect you for that, assuming that the facts presented are the most favorable to your S’s friend, I think that firing a small number of RAs to make a point is very effective. It’s unfortunate that your S’s friend was one of the chosen few. </p>
<p>I believe that good will is the best way to motivate and build morale among those that are doing a good job and fulfilling the requirements of the job, and fear is an excellent way to motivate those who are under-performing. </p>
<p>If the charges of missing rounds are indeed faulty, and appeal is certainly warranted. But if a select few get fired even though “everybody” did it, well, it’s unfortunate to be selected, but there is nothing unfair about it. NEU’s objective in handling their RAs it to make sure the job gets done.</p>
<p>Fear may be away to motivate unperforming, but IMHO, selective punishment for breaking rules will very quickly lead to a distrust of management, and attitudes of do whatever you can get away with. Classic, maybe you have not had to deal with becuase management in your shop (whatever your shop is, is better). Again, I really hope this is not what NEU is teaching in business school.</p>
<p>It’s not selective punishment at all. They have fired every RA they found who didn’t do the job, with no exceptions. What’s selective about that?</p>
<p>I’ll assume this means you will want NEU to fire the rest of the RAs who didn’t do their jobs if they find them.</p>
<p>Wait - it is selective. They only fired those who were irresponsible.</p>
<p>In the real world, many people who do their jobs according to contract feel slighted and angry when slack-off colleagues are not called to account by conflict-averse managers. “Fair” means different things to different people. The RAs who took compensation and free housing but did not do their rounds are not, in my eyes, victims of inhumane management. Hopefully they have learned an important lesson about how the world works, and they will not repeat the mistake when they are out of school.</p>
<p>I’m not a labor lawyer and I’m not a lawyer in Massachusetts, but if the RAs are employees, then the limit of Northeastern’s liability for anything that happened to them at 2 in the morning while crossing the street to do rounds would PROBABLY be workmen’s comp. </p>
<p>I don’t have a kid who attends Northeastern. If I did and found out that (s)he had to cross a busy street at 2 am if (s)he is a RA, my reaction would be “go find another job,” NOT “Take the job but just don’t do it.”</p>
<p>I have yet to read a recent CC post/thread which has become as volatile and contentious as this one, with so many posters who seem to think they have solved the mystery of the fired RAs! … Of course, based on their own biases, all true facts-zero speculation, and then pronounced judgment and approved the punishment set down by NEU administration.
I am not certain what more is to be gained by this thread, unless it is filling a need by some to judge or argue. Maybe it should be moved over to the law school forum. :)</p>
<p>{“It’s not selective punishment at all. They have fired every RA they found who didn’t do the job, with no exceptions. What’s selective about that?”}</p>
<p>mini, how do you know that? How do you know they didn’t find that all 14 on that staff were not 100% in compliance (which seems pretty likely from what the students in the campus blog were saying), but that they chose exactly half of them (presumably the half with the greater non-compliance, or at least evidence that demonstrated that, even though the evidence may well have been inaccurate, which no one seems to care about) to fire? </p>
<p>Because if they chose the top 8 instead of the top 7, or RAs from other staffs who were also non-compliant but if fired because of where they lived, Res Life would be in non-compliance with its own 50% coverage regulations?</p>
<p>As to “mitigating risk” being the reason for all this, I think the residents are in a far riskier situation right now with fewer RAs to cover them.</p>