<p>“Wrong again PG. These were top recruits/ top players.”</p>
<p>We disagree. coaches kicking out minor players to make examples is a common practice. they just happened to be better here according to you. so what. </p>
<p>notrichenough - so how early can they start? If they keep going back to this each year, it sounds like this audit will decide if they are rehired next year.</p>
<p>Pizza, if the RAs committed such awful mistakes, how did management not know? Was management not delinquent? I really don’t see how you can have it both ways. If it such an offense that firing on the spot is appropriate, how did management let it go on so long?</p>
<p>Texas, people are only addressing the example you gave (Saban).</p>
<p>Saban was recent one in the news. Before every big game/bowl game players are suspended and in some cases kicked off the team to the get the team to be more focused. It is a very common practice and all one needs to do is google.</p>
<p>Texas, I did google. It seemed fair to me what Saban did. I really hope that neither you nor Northeastern believe in general the way to motivate people is to fire some as an example. I really do want to believe this was a bueracratic blunder by a Northeastern employee, that will be fixed. I really do hope that Northeastern’s business school does not teach students to fire a couple of people just to set an example.</p>
<p>Kayf,</p>
<p>People aren’t arguing that the management shouldn’t have done a better job. Clearly, for a problem to get to the point where so many employees aren’t doing their jobs, there’s a problem in the chain of supervision. Perhaps people higher in the chain need to be fired too. Perhaps systems need to be changed. </p>
<p>But, the reality is that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that someone got away with something in the past because of incompetent supervision, doesn’t mean they are without blame. They didn’t show up for work.</p>
<p>Exactly. Whether NEU residential life management was well-managed or not doesn’t change the fact that these students BLATANTLY skipped out on their responsibilities. Not here or there, but wholesale not-doing-their-duties. How can that possibly be defended, at all?</p>
<p>Please understand I am not arguing that anyone is completely innocent of anything here. But, like kayf, I do feel many more people were “guilty” of something than have been punished, and I do feel that some of the procedures were severely faulty and that yes, some of the “crimes” the fired RAs were accused of were not actually what happened (ie. they did NOT skip certain rounds even though they were accused of doing so), and the administration has handled this exceedingly poorly, and there are probably 30 better ways the Res Life could have reacted to the problems with the entire RA staff. So I just can’t be as black and white about it as some of you.</p>
<p>
Or maybe it’s not so egregious.</p>
<p>To take the example used earlier - an O.D. could happen anywhere on campus at any time. Does NEU do rounds in every single hallway of every single building and their entire grounds 3 or 4 times a night? What happens if it happens at 2:01 AM, after the last round? What is so magic about 2:00 AM?</p>
<p>From what someone said up-thread, some schools don’t do rounds at all. Are these schools all horribly negligent?</p>
<p>Maybe you are assigning too much importance to doing rounds. This is probably, what, 5% of the job?</p>
<p>"It seemed fair to me what Saban did. I really hope that neither you nor Northeastern believe in general the way to motivate people is to fire some as an example. "</p>
<p>[Nick</a> Saban kicks 4 foolish players off the Bama team](<a href=“http://playonsaturdays.com/nick-saban-kicks-4-foolish-players-off-the-bama-team/]Nick”>http://playonsaturdays.com/nick-saban-kicks-4-foolish-players-off-the-bama-team/)</p>
<p>If NEU announced officially that the fired RAs were responsible for patrolling an area where someone was found overdosed and rushed to emergency, is that cause enough for firing? Just because they did not announce the real reason, it does not mean they are not covering their tracks without creating headlines.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think RAs should not be used as campus security force. But if a school has it that way and wants to enforce responsibilities, it is not national news.</p>
<p>Btw, other than knowing NEU is somewhere in the Boston area, I don’t know a thing about it. So what I think is immaterial to what NEU people do or want to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely wrong again, this happened off season. At least one of the players removed was considered THE top recruit in the US for his recruiting class. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of professional recruiters. </p>
<p>But still, and regardless of your inaccurate statements, a huge difference between skipping buildings on rounds, and assault/theft. </p>
<p>Sent from my DROID RAZR using CC</p>
<p>yes, nre, that’s one of the points I had been (not so eloquently) trying to make early on. Based on the pages of job description in the employment contract, I would guesstimate (word?) that rounds were around 5% of the job, with no indication of their importance weighing more heavily than all the other duties. </p>
<p>To think that none of us has ever slacked off on any job and not performed 100% of our duties to 100% of our ability 100% of the time, well, that would make us a pretty amazing group! And to think that only those 7 RAs were the ones who slacked off so egregiously (and they were able to determine that prior to the final results of the audit) - it just all fits into place a little too perfectly.</p>
<p>"But still, and regardless of your inaccurate statements, a huge difference between skipping buildings on rounds, and assault/theft. "</p>
<p>I have no idea what you consider inaccurate statements. I don’t give a rodent’s behind about your views about it if you don’t want to have a civil discourse.</p>
<p>yes if our bosses REALLY knew how much time we spent on CC during the day - well we’d probably be fired…</p>
<p>But we do not know how much these RAs slacked off. And even if rounds are only 5% of the job, it happens to be a very important 5% if rounds are an effective way to repot and prevent crime/violence from occurring in the dorms…</p>
<p>
That’s a big “if”.</p>
<p>Apparently some schools feel it isn’t effective, because they don’t do them.</p>
<p>And if we are postulating scenarios, I still think a more likely scenario is that someone up the chain found out rounds weren’t being done and went looking for answers. And the responsible party, rather than saying “I don’t know, we don’t ever check or supervise this” decided to try to save their own behind with “What! Those slackers, I’ll fire them!”</p>
<p>Only now it is getting out of hand and every RA is under the microscope.</p>
<p>NEU won’t fire any more though, because then people would really start asking uncomfortable questions like “how can half of your RAs be doing so bad you had to fire them? What the heck is going on?”</p>
<p>Kayf–</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I am not shouting–caps are to emphasize the FACTS–let’s keep the facts straight.</p></li>
<li><p>I am not mad, but am a Dad from MA (Massachusetts) hence, MADad!</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Responding to a post from several pages back re: analogy to collecting unemployment: I someone is fired for failing to do their duties as assigned or something similar, they were probably fired for cause, and might not be entitled to unemployment benefits.</p>
<p>" I really hope that neither you nor Northeastern believe in general the way to motivate people is to fire some as an example."</p>
<p>I see no evidence that they were fired to set an example. That’s pure, unfounded speculation.</p>
<p>Mini, I was responding to Texaspg’s suggestion that firing someone is frequently done in athletics to enhance performance, and the analogy that it would be OK here.</p>
<p>MaDAD -</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Typing in caps is frequently interpreted as shouting. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it is common.</p></li>
<li><p>OK, but lets talk about the facts.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You insist on saying “only 7” of 188 were fired. My rebuttal was that only 14 appear to have been tested for compliance with the rules. The supervisors of the remainder are apparently supposed to report back by April 3rd. So if a large portion of the 174 are non-compliant – will they be fired? or were the first 7 just meant to be used to set an example?</p>
<p>Well, pretty much everything discussed here about the possible motives or reasons behind the administration’s sudden change from lax supervision to zero tolerance is speculation… and the arguments presented here are based on beliefs about what those motives or reasons may be.</p>
<p>Given how slowly university administrations typically move, it would not be surprising if it were something “big” (in terms of legal liability risk) that induced this sudden change – and if that were the case, it likely happened on the watch of the 14 who were audited first.</p>