<p>Cpt, I don’t know if I agree with you. I suspect employees of NEU have more protections. It seems like one group was punished. Hard to believe a group did something to warrant this. </p>
<p>In any event, for a Director of Residence Life to do this, with no oversight from NEU administration says to me, as a parent, why are we paying tuition for all these levels of administration if there is no fairness? In a private business, if people are let go unfairly, the business bears the downside. Here, Reslife is apparently untouchable.</p>
<p>A university isn’t a mom and pop shop and they should hold themselves to a much higher standard. They are working with employees who are 18-22 years old. They place these employees among a group of freshmen residents and together they are supposed to develop a community. The firing of an RA can affect that community deeply. In most states employment is at the will of the employer, but an educational institution should hold themselves to the higher standard of just cause and they should treat all the RAs the same. If they used an audit system to look at job performance, they can’t justify only looking at a few or not applying the same outcome to all who fall short of expectations.</p>
<p>If there is an actual contract agreement which is uniform for every RA hired, then to enforce the contract for some, but not all, is called disparate treatment, and if this went to a labor attorney, (which is entirely possible), NEU would be on very shaky grounds. I am sure a legal clinic in Boston would be happy to practice their skills in this case. I think people are too quick to assume that NEU is being transparent and that the RAs are in the wrong. Sounds like NEU doesn’t want to spend money on security on a large urban campus. What are RAs supposed to do if they find a security issue? I doubt they receive training as security guards. Totally ridiculous function for an RA. Call someone trained in public safety or criminal justice! And pay them to do security.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. I know a few situations like this, and the reasons were good indeed. But then there have been times when the reasons were not good enough and those fired screamed long and loud, got a lot of attention and some heads rolled.</p>
<p>Mini, you keep saying this, but the student paper doesn’t mention anything like the dorm was the site of a busted pot party earlier this year, etc etc. If the administration had a good reason, they could have said so. They said people were terminated for missing rounds, so I take them at their word. No we don’t have to wait. People can form their own opinion based on the facts the school has presented.</p>
<p>On the contrary, the administration may have had very, very strong reasons for not saying anything, and it may also have been part of the agreement with the RAs.</p>
<p>Since when do you think a student paper will have all the “facts” about a substantial action on the part of a school administration? (It took the Princeton paper FIVE YEARS to publish statistics gathered in 2008 on the extent of sexual assault on campus.)</p>
<p>If I were an RA, I might be very pleased to be dismissed for “missing rounds” if, in fact, there was something very much worse. And I certainly wouldn’t say anything to the student paper.</p>
<p>Mini, if the RA had done such awful things, I would seriously doubt he or she would complain to the school newspaper, demand meetings to appeal, etc. It seems far more likely to me that this was an incompetent administrator. Again, like the NYU Residence Director who thought is just peachy for a 4 YO to live in a dorm. The NYU guy backed down when the roommate went public. As a parent, I resent paying for layers of admin people if they are not competent. The NEU ResLife people say the “audit” is continuing (of course, some RAs are in dorms where the key access is not part of the process). To me, to fire some people partly through the process shows incompetent management.</p>
<p>It is unlikely to have been one RA. And a way to cover - where individual responsibility for what may have happened is unclear, risk management at the university quite competently and after long consideration might have decided that the best way to protect the university would be to get rid of the lot of them.</p>
<p>At the very, very least, the RAs were stealing from the university, receiving payment for work not performed, and putting students (who were paying them) at increased risk.</p>
<p>Mini, by that rationale, a much larger number of RAs were missing rounds, were they not stealing too? Do you not support fair punishment? If they wait to fire the larger number till the end of the term, that is not the same. </p>
<p>Risk management should have worked with the RD to have more backup, if there were issues (which you continually assume).</p>
<p>The punishment might have been very fair. Corporations correct problems as they find them. They don’t wait to fire the crooks they know about it because they haven’t yet caught all of them. Now THAT would be irresponsible, especially if it endangers student safety.</p>
<p>But I don’t for one minute think this is simply about missing rounds.</p>
<p>“As a parent, I resent paying for layers of admin people if they are not competent.” </p>
<p>kayf I am a little confused, you seem to have made this entire situation very personal, do you have a student at Northeastern? And if you do not - and are not actually paying anything to this school - how can you resent paying for what this school is doing?</p>
<p>I meant it as a general statement, from the point of view as a parent. Most colleges are raising tuition well in excess of inflation, and part of the excuse/rationale seems to be that administrative needs are higher. I am not saying that all Residence Life personnel are handling things poorly, but I think this is a situation where Northeastern should re-examine a number of issues, and that review should be conducted by persons outside of the RL group. </p>
<p>Some people here are assuming that something so awful happened that one group of RAs were justifiably targeted (even though the school paper was unaware why that was). I am sceptical that a RA who had done something so awful would run to the newspaper, etc. If she was just at the wrong place, wrong time, then why are all RAs not subject to same punishment. </p>
<p>I think Northeastern should be more transparent, and should answer many questions, including will all RAs be subject to the same punishment. Of course, they don’t have to.</p>
<p>Is it possible that this comes within her bailiwick? And that she discovered almost immediately that procedures weren’t being followed? And that this exposed the university to too much risk? </p>
<p>I don’t get all the sympathy for the RAs. They weren’t doing their jobs. It doesn’t seem to have been a one shot deal. I’m not a labor lawyer, but I doubt the RAs even qualify as employees. Do they receive W-2s and pay taxes and have FICA withheld? </p>
<p>The campus newspaper has a crime blog. If anyone has any doubts that drinking causes problems on campus, read it. (I’m NOT suggesting Northeastern is worse than any other college. I’m just saying it is kind of amazing to read report after report about intoxicated students.)</p>
<p>Jonri, just because someone does not get a W-2 does not mean they are not an employee. If an employee is required to live at the employer’s location, then the housing may not have to go on a W-2. </p>
<p>Yes, the crime log reports a lot of typical college stuff. I can not see that it is all in any one dorm. </p>
<p>I still do not understand any rationale for targeting one group. Even if one or more individuals within that group did something awful, targeting a group is wrong. ALL the RAs should be subject to the same rules. </p>
<p>I do not see how one can justify looking at one group of 14 RAs and not subjecting all to similar treatment.</p>
<p>ETA – here is an interesting story on Umass RAs unionizing </p>
<p>You can’t lower your liability after the fact.</p>
<p>The whole problem could have been solved with a three sentence email:</p>
<p>“It has come to our attention that some RAs have been skipping rounds. We are now auditing card readers and sign-in logs on a continuous basis. Anyone found to have missed a round without permission from the Director will be immediately fired.”</p>
<p>To me this situation smells more like a CYA job by whoever is doing the firing. They’ve been discovered to be inadequately doing their own job and not properly supervising the RAs, so they are doing something drastic to show they have things under control.</p>
<p>
What percentage of their job is a round?</p>
<p>Every large company I’ve worked for (I think NEU would qualify as large) has an employee handbook that tells you what offenses you can be immediately fired for, what the disciplinary process is, etc.</p>
<p>Downloading porn? Fired. Bringing a weapon into the building? Fired.</p>
<p>Slacking? Not so much… meetings, written warnings, improvement plans, etc. </p>
<p>Since many of us are posting during working hours, I guess we are stealing from our employers as well and should be summarily fired. When I have a discussion over the cube wall with my neighbor about how the Celtics did last night, I guess I am stealing there too.</p>
</p>