<p>Not rich. I mentioned that the state (or commonwealth) of Mass held that the Umass RAs were employees – someone here had questioned whether RAs were employees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could be that the RAs did not do anything awful, but the omission of rounds allowed an awful incident in the dorms to go undetected for too long.</p>
<p>Of course, this is speculation. But it is really odd for an organization to go from lax to zero tolerance on some rule without much warning, unless some serious-enough incident revealed some big time risk involved.</p>
<p>UCBA – again, I ask, if the issue is omission of rounds, why was a group of 14 targeted for audit, 7 fired, and NOW the administration is looking at the other 174 RAs? This is poor administration. And I would think if a “big” event happened, the school paper would not be wondering why these dorms were targeted. </p>
<p>ETA – I certainly hope that Northeastern’s business school or law schools dont recommend this process.</p>
<p>I see it now - you edited a previous post and I missed the edit.</p>
<p>Ironically, this episode could provide the impetus for the NEU RAs to unionize, I’m sure the powers that be will be thrilled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a speculated awful incident happened in a dorm under that group of 14, then it would not be surprising if that group were the first group to be audited.</p>
<p>“It could be that the RAs did not do anything awful, but the omission of rounds allowed an awful incident in the dorms to go undetected for too long.”</p>
<p>As I’ve previously noted, there is a history of drug overdoses. If there wasn’t a death, it would not appear on the news. (And there are so many - and certainly not just at NEU, or even especially at NEU). An RA missing rounds might miss a student needing serious medical attention. (If this was the case, NEU certainly doesn’t want to publicize it, and the RAs don’t want it publicized, and so this is a suitable if less than happy ending.) Or maybe it had nothing to do with drugs, but a student found in a diabetic coma, and found much later than she should have been. Or…</p>
<p>I can speculate about dozens of other possibilities. We might find out – in five years.</p>
<p>I agree with a lot of what is written here, and I appreciate the reasoned discussion. I really can see this from the side of those of you who are saying, “they didn’t do their jobs, they deserve to get fired.” I have been pro-business my entire life; I’ve hired and fired employees, I’ve seen unionized workers keep their jobs after punching out their supervisors in the break room and have been appalled … (hmm, maybe the RAs should unionize)? :)</p>
<p>But I wonder if you can step outside that for a minute and think that there may be another side? </p>
<p>You are basing your opinions on what you know and have read thus far, from the only news outlet - the student newspaper – that has covered this in the press. Which is totally fine (although I have to laugh at those that demanded a news story as proof that something had gone on, and now are questioning the veracity or completeness of the news story… which I thought was fair and balanced, presenting both sides). </p>
<p>But, and you can disbelieve me if you’d like, and focus on the 2 errors I made earlier (semi-errors, which I tried hard to rectify!), I am pretty sure that unless there is a NEU Res Life person posting here, or a parent or student of one of those fired, I may be the poster closest to the situation, and I am aware of several concerning issues and gray areas. It is not my kid, but one of my kid’s best friends. I have spoken to him at length, and I have seen all the documents involved. There are so, so many arms of this thing and questionable motives, tactics, standards, including whether there is real, solid verifiable proof of wrongdoing. Not to mention standards applied to some and not others. The eye-opening behavior of superiors… As I said before, I can’t, shouldn’t and won’t post those things here, as they are not verifiable facts. But…</p>
<p>All I am saying is, if this were your kid, and you knew all the circumstances, I really do think you might think differently. I know, I know, you would tell them to take it like a man, s/he should have been doing their job, let this be a lesson to you… all those things I, a week ago, might well have argued in this very same thread that I would have said to my kid in a similar situation. But maybe open your mind up that there could be another version of events, or more factors to consider. That maybe nothing but bungling administrative policy started this whole thing. That maybe the RAs are right, and the university is wrong?</p>
<p>UCBA – I still do not understand. Is NEU willing to fire half the RAs if they missed the requisite number of rounds? Or are different standards being applied, and some kids may just be unlikely? Or do they have more than twice the RAs they need. My point is, at least where I work, if were going to say, fire people for missing a staff meeting, before we fired, we would make certain we knew how many people we were talking about.</p>
<p>
No, missing a single round is grounds for firing, and it can be applied with the discretion of the Head. </p>
<p>
No, it’s someone’s job to make sure the work is properly done and their sole responsibility. </p>
<p>Basically, people got caught not doing what they were being paid for. Some people were made examples of. All other RAs will now do their rounds for fear of being fired. As I said, I think it would have been more equitable simply to dock everyone’s pay for each round missed, and if the only pay was free room and board, to get them to sign a consent agreement to bill them in order for them to keep their jobs. </p>
<p>I agree that NEU made this into a bigger problem than it had to be, but now in future years no RAs will miss rounds either, so the public nature of it is beneficial. For the rest of this year though, residents are not getting the support that they or their parents are paying for, and I’m sure someone is going to have a problem ($$$) with that.</p>
<p>Here is my issue. If Northeastern wants to say, we are going to make an example of a few people and be really harsh with them, where does that stop? One beer in dorm, you are thrown out of dorm? Two sentences inadvertently copied, plagarism, it goes on your record and your thrown out of school. If this is how the Northeastern administration wants to deal with things, by making an example of things where everyone does it, I dont like that. But right now, that seems to be their approach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. And whining that it wasn’t done fairly is rather than whining to the police officer that everyone speeds along this road, how come you’re the one getting the ticket. Whether it’s distributed fairly or not doesn’t change the fact that apparently these RA’s didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Being an RA is a pretty big leadership position in general. The university has a lot riding on their ability to be trustworthy and carry out their duties. I agree it would be better if NEU were entirely even-handed, but you know, it would be best if RA’s just did what they were supposed to do in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, Mannix. You have a deep emotional investment in this, as evidenced by your very first post where you did overreact and a) completely overstate the nature of the issue (half of the RA’s fired) AND b) act as though it was over a trivial duty missed. It’s hard to trust your interpretation of the things and even more so when all you’re giving us is a “trust me, there’s more than meets the eye but I’m not at liberty to say.” Sorry, that’s not compelling.</p>
<p>Kayf, Northeastern is making of an issue of people who they compensate not doing the job for which they compensated them to do. They are entitled to do that in a manner that produces the outcome that they want, whether fair or unfair. </p>
<p>The other things you mention are student behaviors. They can be harsh on those things to if they want, but that’s another topic entirely. </p>
<p>People who live in the dorms are paying for the support provided by the RAs. Part of that support is making the rounds. NEU has made a commitment to provide these services and the people they employed to provide them didn’t. I really don’t have a problem with firing people who are paid to do a job and don’t do it. It’s really that simple. </p>
<p>It’s not personal, it’s strictly business. :-)</p>
<p>Kayf, Northeastern is making of an issue of people who they compensate not doing the job for which they compensated them to do. They are entitled to do that in a manner that produces the outcome that they want, whether fair or unfair. </p>
<hr>
<p>I don’t necessarily agree that being unfair will ultimately give them the result they want, but yes, they can be unfair. I think long term, when people or institutions are unfair, it can catch up with them. IMHO, the Northeastern administration should decide whether they want to be fair or not, and at a minimum, be more transparent.</p>
<p>“If Northeastern wants to say, we are going to make an example of a few people and be really harsh with them, where does that stop? One beer in dorm, you are thrown out of dorm? Two sentences inadvertently copied, plagarism, it goes on your record and your thrown out of school.”</p>
<p>Hey, there’s no evidence that they are being particularly harsh. They didn’t crucify them. There is no evidence that they are being made an example of. And, no, it doesn’t lead to the use of nuclear weapons. There’s no evidence that they were being unfair.</p>
<p>And it may be that it is the RAs who prefer NEU not be more transparent.</p>
<p>I too don’t understand the sympathy for the RAs. NEU places an emphasis on professional behavior due to its outstanding coop program. Coops are reviewed every 2 weeks or every month when they are on a coop job. Doesn’t that apply to the RAs - the audit showed that they were not doing their job, hence they were fired. Who cares if other kids got away with it before…whether an incident happened that triggered the audit or if it was the new risk VP, it really doesn’t matter. There are plenty of other kids that would LOVE the RA position…it costs approximately $5500 per semester for a NEU kid to share a room in an on campus apt. That is a pretty good part-time job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL! These RA’s DIDN"T DO THE JOB THEY WERE HIRED TO DO - and not just the occasional slip-up, but a pretty systematic lack of doing it - and we’re supposed to be concerned with the big moral lesson that should be taught to the NEU administration??
Here’s a concept. When you don’t do the job you’re hired to do, it’ll catch up with you.</p>
<p>The NEU administration wouldn’t have to worry about selectively enforcing the rules if the RA’s just had a work ethic in the first place. </p>
<p>I sympathize with the liability of the NEU administration - any college administration - who has the responsibility for the safety and well-being of the students. Sorry, only tiny violins here for the poor RA’s who were unfairly castigated for not doing what they were supposed to do.</p>
<p>no, i wouldn’t say I have a “deep emotional investment.” Not even close (it isn’t my kid). Just a sense of right & wrong, and fairness. And an opinion based upon my own 30 years in the business world. That’s fine, you do not have to take my word for it, I understand. I do believe if it were your own kid and you knew more of the circumstances, you might feel differently. But that’s okay, we can agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Maybe they SHOULD unionize - in that case, at least they would be in the position being able to actually negotiate the employment contract, rather than being told they need to sign whatever is put in front of them if they want the job.</p>
<p>Someone mentioned awhile back that RAs are becoming obsolete. I was one back in the stone ages, and I’m sure things were different then. But maybe that experience also has me particularly jaded about how this was handled. I repeat what a mentioned (maybe in the other thread) - even assuming some of duty rounds were in fact neglected (and I do not believe that is at all black and white), I do not feel the punishment fits the crime (assuming the punishment is kicking them out of the dorms with just a few weeks of classes left), especially as it was applied to a select few. I agree with the poster a few pages back that a better resolution might have been a 3 sentence e-mail saying shape up or ship out. Instead, they HAVE used these RAs an example and the university has managed to plunge the entire Res Life staff into turmoil, turning RAs against res directors, stressing out every staff member as they enter exam period stretching the remaining RAs completely thin with the new responsibilities. Residents of the terminated RAs are collectively unhappy and outraged (my fact, take it or leave it if you want to). So much stuff goes on in college dorms, THIS is what the university chooses to focus on as a solution?</p>
<p>Pizza, forget the RAs for a minute. What is your opinion of Northeastern’s Director of Residential Life who would sample one group of kids, fire half of them, and now is awaiting results on the majority of them? My complaint is with really poor college administration.</p>
<p>Gosh, mannix, I have 25 years in the business world myself. That’s nothing special.</p>
<p>It seems like the punishment fit the crime quite well. What you call “making an example of” seems to me like “the right punishment for not doing one’s job.” Sorry, the RAs’ behavior got them into this predicament. </p>
<p>Disclosure: My H was an RA, back in the dark ages.</p>