<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent point.</p>
<p>Updates from this week’s NEU student newspaper:</p>
<p>[ResLife</a> slow to move on audits | The Huntington News](<a href=“http://huntnewsnu.com/2013/04/reslife-slow-to-move-on-audits/]ResLife”>http://huntnewsnu.com/2013/04/reslife-slow-to-move-on-audits/)</p>
<p>What stands out for me is the DIRECTIVE not to talk to the press (not a request)</p>
<p>[Editorial:</a> RA terminations result of ResLife shortcomings | The Huntington News](<a href=“http://huntnewsnu.com/2013/04/editorial-ra-terminations-result-of-reslife-shortcomings/]Editorial:”>http://huntnewsnu.com/2013/04/editorial-ra-terminations-result-of-reslife-shortcomings/)</p>
<p>I think this is a good editorial, written by a student obviously closer to the issue than any of us, and simply demanding transparency and no knee-jerk reactions which leave dorms half-staffed. What stood out for me in this one: “Furthermore, based on available information, it seems the decisions of whom to fire are arbitrary. In FLYS [the staff first targeted], more than half of the staff were accused of missing rounds, but as ResLife mandates that half of a staff is always necessary to keep dorms open, the RAs in question received unequal treatment. At least one RA who previously had an exemplary record was among those fired. It is possible that there was some rhyme and reason to these decisions, but due to ResLifes failure to communicate with the Northeastern community regarding this issue, this is yet to be seen.”</p>
<p>I’m left with still feeling this is nothing more than Res Life run amok, with exceedingly poor management.</p>
<p>And finally this from comments section of original article (written by a former NEU RA) on 3/28, after the first newspaper article:</p>
<p>"Res Life has a history of terminating folks for any reason they can find, whether it be because of personal vendettas (which many higher-ups at Res Life have a hard time of hiding) or people who are on a life-long power trip. Consider that many who become RAs fit the mold of the latter, it’s not strange to think that the ones who continue on to a career in that department enjoy power trips as well.</p>
<p>The issue for me, as it always has been with Res Life (I was an RA for two years and saw many fantastic coworkers get terminated) is that I often am left wondering what the one true goal of an RA is supposed to be. </p>
<p>Res Life will have you believe that it’s all about the often-tedious, meticulous details of the job that are most important. Forget one, screw one up, and you’re canned. That job description lends itself to mechanical individuals, those who are often clueless when it comes to dealing with other human beings in a caring way.</p>
<p>What I always believed - and the reason I became an RA - was that RAs are meant to be a support system. They’re meant to do the best job possible at guiding someone along a productive, healthy and enjoyable college journey. When someone is screwing up, yes, it’s often the RAs job to work out the kinks. But it’s not their job to be a hall monitor, to make sure everyone is in bed by 9, to be, essentially, a ridiculously-strict parent. </p>
<p>The most caring RAs, the ones that touch lives, the ones that help harness a successful and productive living space, are the best ones. And they’re often the ones that bend some of the silly rules to protect the sanctity of their living space and help their residents learn and grow as people. </p>
<p>Res Life asks way more out of their RAs than the contract would lead you to believe. That’s why at the bottom of the contract, there’s this little clause that says something like, “And you will do whatever else we ask of you.” Signing that is equivalent to signing your life away. Yes, RAs fail to adhere to a lot of what is on that contract. Almost all of them do at some point. They would all be fired if Res Life knew every time an RA went against the contract. There would be a handful of them left.</p>
<p>So if the argument is that this person deserved to get fired because she didn’t do her responsibility listed in the contract, well, get rid of all the RAs. Do the University-wide audit, fire every single person who failed to do one part of their contract and see what you’re left with."</p>
<p>You yourself explained why NEU didn’t get rid of all the RAs.</p>
<p>Also from the editiorial - “After last month’s firings, residents in 337 Huntington Ave. were left without any RAs in their building to whom they could go with their problems.”</p>
<p>As to why some were let go, and not others, the article did not state whether Reslife had an objective standard (say missing more than 1/2 of rounds). But how could they, if they fired some before their review was complete?</p>
<p>This is more of why ResLife is coming off as incompetent to me, and in need of a review by someone outside of ResLife. Whether Northeastern acts to ensure fairness and transparency apparently will be watched by the student newspaper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, you could say that about most threads on cc.</p>
<p>From the editorials, </p>
<p>“Whatever the outcome, RAs said, the problem is solved; since word of the firings began to spread two weeks ago, RAs say there has been much less delinquency on rounds.” </p>
<p>LOL! For all of the hoopla, maybe the management of ResLife is not so dumb. 6 of the 7 RAs have filed appeals, RAs are doing their rounds. I can see this ending well.</p>
<p>Mannix, good luck to your S’s friend.</p>
<p>Reminds me of the movie Bull Durham on Crash Davis’s advice to the manager on how to motivate the team. “Scare them!”. Enjoy the clip. </p>
<p><a href=“http://remarkableleader.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/tag/bull-durham-crash-davis/[/url]”>http://remarkableleader.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/tag/bull-durham-crash-davis/</a></p>
<p>Moral of the story, no more lollylaggang.</p>
<p>In other words, only 1 RA is out the door at this point. The one who chose not to appeal made that choice, but could have stayed through an appeal.</p>
<p>They started their audit, and completed it at one building first. They were the ones on whom the warning shot was fired. By handling it this way, those 6 who chose to appeal are still performing the job, and still have housing, but all are on notice. If they lose their appeal, it looks like they will have been allowed to finish out their term as an RA, so the loss they suffer is a note in their employment file. </p>
<p>If they had simply “warned” the RAs that they risked losing their jobs, would they have been taken seriously? If they’re all doing their jobs now, it sounds like this was a smart move after all. Maybe it appears unfair, but they were given due process. They just got the short end of the stick in that their building was audited first.</p>
<p>Moral of the story – this is how Northeastern teaches students to manage? I hope not. That style of management won’t get a company into the Best 100 to work for.</p>
<p>Let’s remember, these are students, whose studying was likely disrupted by using a bludgeon for a management tool. </p>
<p>One wonders, had the first RAs not publicly complained, what Northeastern would have done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends if you want to be part of a winning team or a team of lollygaggers.</p>
<p>Classic, I work on a winning team. There are ways to motivate other than this.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know, me too, but didn’t you like the clip!</p>
<p>CTscoutsmom - the news story got that part slightly wrong - the RAs who appealed are not performing their jobs; they were stripped of their duties but not kicked out of their rooms. </p>
<p>Initially they were told appeal decisions would be handed down immediately after their appeal meetings with the Dean and, if firings upheld, would need to vacate their rooms. But, as the newstory indicated, admin is now waiting to see the outcome of the remaining audits before finalizing any firings. </p>
<p>That makes sense, except that now several dorms are half-staffed (including one building without any RA), which cannot be in the best interests of the residents (don’t think anyone can argue that), and the terminated RAs are living for free without performing any duties… so how is this a good example to anyone, I wonder. </p>
<p>I guess I still cannot agree that this was handled appropriately from any way you look at it. And I hope that most who were arguing that the RAs who weren’t performing their jobs got fired, and the rest did not because they are all performing their jobs to a tee, can see that this certainly was not the case.</p>
<p>@kayf: A few hours after Mannix started the initial thread on this incident a week ago with the now disproven claims that half of all RA’s were fired and “thrown out on the street” you started a thread on the Northeastern forum urging recently accepted students and their parents not to attend Northeastern because of the bad administration there. A moderator deleted that thread as it violated CC’s terms and conditions. </p>
<p>Was that an example of your view of responsible management? Jumping to conclusions and urging a boycott based on one person’s inaccurate report?</p>
<p>Lather, rinse, repeat.</p>
<p>Tom, I do not know why the other thread was deleted. I thought there was an issue of other posters speculating about what awful things the RAs may have done. They appear to be the ones who made irresponsible judgements. </p>
<p>I am still waiting for Northeastern University to demand an outside review of ResLife. Apparently it is wrong for coaches to torment kids, but OK for the head of Reslife to do so.</p>
<p>Moderator’s note: I deleted that thread since it is inappropriate for ANY POSTER to be starting ANY THREADS asking the parents and students to reevaluate going to a specific school. This is VERY OFFENSIVE to the parents and students already attending that school and has been reported by them.</p>
<p>No additional discussion on this topic will be entertained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there really all that much “hoopla” about this? From what I can see, it was a big deal to the affected RAs and a few others in a tiny corner of the world, and TWO really worked up posters on CC.</p>
<p>DH and I have always loved that “lollygaggers” scene. :)</p>
<p>I see a university responsibly protecting the health and safety of its student body. What a concept! :)</p>
<p>I see a university with a low-level manager who went off on their own to make a point and overstepped their bounds, and now the higher-ups have been dragged in to clean up the mess while trying to save face.</p>
<p>How is leaving a dorm with no RAs “protecting the health and safety” of the students? I’m not sure that protecting the health and safety of students is even the primary function of an RA. They are not nannies.</p>
<p>Prediction: the reviews will not be finished before the end of the semester, after which this all becomes mostly irrelevant. NEU will not make any announcements because as an institution they have no interest in being transparent and accountable.</p>