That increase is right in line with inflation over that time period. 23.5% cumulative inflation
ISU VP of Finance & Operations Settlement
- Thread starter Cyville55
- Start date
That increase is right in line with inflation over that time period. 23.5% cumulative inflation
If you want to get rid of a guy after a year you have cause. If you do your job you have a case documented and there is zero need for lawyers.
This idea that there’s something magical or special about the process for these higher level positions is idiotic. It’s just a bunch of people at high levels that are bad at being managers, have no balls, want to protect the racket if/when they get canned, or a combination.
I’ve been charge of people for over 20 years at large companies, small companies, and ISU. I’ve had to let many people go for a wide range of reasons. And magically because I follow good practices there hasn’t been a legal problem once.
These idiots need to do their job. If you do the job right there is no case. It’s not like this turd is getting lawyers for free. And if ISU gets sued and loses a wrongful termination case, that should be brought to light and those that failed need to be fired.
University administrators need to stop acting like this is some super complicated process that we simple folks can’t understand. They are just lazy and gutless.
A lot of education positions have contracts so you need a reason to not let them finish the contract.
I get that, the issue is that someone who must have clearly f*cked up and behaved inappropriately professionally, personally, or both, is given such a substantial payout to essentially "accept" being fired. BS.
Not true on lawyer costs - many lawyers will tale on contingency and the plaintiffs will have no cash outlay. Especially suing the government.
Does that preclude the university from seeking reimbursement of their legal costs from the plaintiff if the case has no merit?
Yet miraculously people get let go all the time without buyouts and without lawsuits.
All speculation. Nothing official has been released. My best guess was something to do with alcohol at work. All university employees got an email on roughly December 1st reminding everyone of the alcohol-at-work policy.
So instead of terminating the person who actually violated the policy, the university sends out a reminder to the 9,000 other employees who are not violating the policy. Makes perfect sense.
So basically the state is funding universities at 50% of 1999 levels.
Over 24 years and assuming
around 3% COLA for wage/other inflation the $506M in 1999 would be slightly over $1B in today's $.
True but as the salaries get higher the stakes get higher
Last edited: