Let's break this down with some logic

[AllWeatherFan]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

 

[MrTitleist]

The university is a public institution. They are not a private company and the stakeholders of UM are the people of montana. People have the right to know why these men were released. If its a personal privacy issue then they should say so. Right now the public comments are not indicating this whatsoever.

Engstrom has NOT GIVEN JUST CAUSE in any of his statements. It amazes me that you defend this firing as such a great move for our University then want to silence any questions on why it was done.

Many people not just me will want to know why Oday was released as well as Pflu. We have the right to know unless there is a legal reason they cannot tell us. If that is the case then they need to cite it as such.

Its not a dictatorship by Engstrom. Its not unreasonable to demand to know why as a UM Alumn, fan, long time Missoula resident.

I dont see why the freedom of information act isnt relavent if this is not a privacy issue.

The people do not have a right to know, just like we don't have the right to know when teachers are fired at public schools (ie MCPS).. what's the difference between UM and MCPS? Both are funded by state/county funds.. yet, I don't see anyone squealing to know why when Jim Bob is fired from Sentinel. It's not our business right now. How would you like your firing, and cause, at UM plastered all over the news? Would you feel like your privacy has been violated? Would you want that out there? Would you want to run the risk (as an employer or employee) of having a legal case ruined because of a media circus? Just because it's a "public" institution doesn't make it our business. If UM wants to release information on the firings, and I imagine they will at some point, they will do it. You can kick and scream like a two year old in every thread on eGriz, but you're still not going to get your information until UM makes the decision to make it public.

You can be pissed off all you want because O'Day is your homeboy, but the fact is this athletic dept is out of control and they are an embarrassment to the state of Montana. Griz athletes and their legal troubles shouldn't be a constant read on the major sports media sites, yet, here we are. This starts at the top and moves its way down. In the end Jim O'Day and his subordinates are responsible for the student athletes and when a handful of student athletes make asses of themselves it's time to start wondering where the problem really is. UM administration felt the problem lies at the feet of O'Day and Pflugrad and they are now paying for their student athletes giving the University a black eye.

 

[zirge]

it may be some one thing that caused this seemingly sudden response (reaction)
or...could it be an accumulation of events as we have seen over the past several years and now with the most recent rapes, abuses to women and assaults (really bad press for the college, town, state etc) that something had to be done to stop the momentum... i.e new leadership.... this could save RE from ultimately being held responsible? why not the athletic department to take the fall since most of the "bad stuff" was coming from "those guys"
i am not sure if this is logic.......just sayin

 

[MsMaroon]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

 

[GrizPony]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

This is correct.

 

[lakers79]

I've been here all day reading the numerous threads about what's happened today with O'Day and Pflugrad and it's a travestly for the two involved, the U of M, and the football program. There's been alot said about speculation into the firings, lawsuits upcoming, future players and coaches leaving the program and so forth. My son plays for Eastern, I'm an MSU Alum and grew up in Montana, and have Numerous family Grizz Alum, and now live in Seattle. I love the town of Missoula, the magnificant stadium, the Grizz fans and of course how they represent the state of Montana and FCS Football. But from an outsider looking in, it looked as though a Giant wrecking ball was headed your way. I don't need to go into it as you all are aware of all the player misconduct these past years, not good PR. Remember we used to call the Portland Trailblazers, "The Jail Blazers". That's the reputation the Grizz have amongst the BSC folks, along with a little jealousy because of your winning program. I'm in NO way dogging on your program, just providing an outside observation from someone who pays attention to Grizz football because it's one of the best in the nation. The University will hire a great AD/HC, and the football program will be just fine, time heals all wounds. As far as a mass exodus of players, I doubt it. Where are they going to go? They have to sit out a year unless they drop down and I doubt any BCS football programs are looking there way either. Who knows what the next few years brings, but This is the U of Montana Football, just like Ohio State, and Grizz are the Grizz. Good luck fellow Montanan's. And of course, Go Eagles!!

 

[AZGrizFan]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

Well then that's a piss-poorly worded contract.

 

[MsMaroon]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

Well then that's a piss-poorly worded contract.

Look. If having your employees sign a contract with a start and end date is all you need to get rid of an employee, then all employers would have all employees signing contracts. Business owners who believe that it is that simple are the same ones who believe that if you pay an employee a salary you don't have to pay him over time

 

[TxGriz]

Hopefully UM gets the crap sued outta them till the truth comes out from Engstrom.

Will happen its just a matter of time before UM is forced to do so.

I do agree with much of your post but there is endless unknowns atm. Right now with nothing but what engstrom gave the press UM is looking like the asshole here.

You do know if the UM gets sued, its your tax dollars that are paying the bill.

They should be insured for it. I see a bad moon rising, hunker down and wait for the shit storm to hit, it's going to get uglier before it gets any better.

 

[mcg]

From the Kramer case I understood that the coaches contract provided for payment upon termination, unless the termination was 'for cause'. The intent of coaching contracts in general is to provide separation money when the coach is fired. Thus I'm think Pflu's attorney will simply ask the U to pay the money as per the contract.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Please read a 2011 Montana Supreme Court case called Yellowstone Club.

 

[Grizmayor]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

Yep... ironically it works in a similiar way in politics. I can pave the streets, fill the potholes, kill the barking dogs, and get all the shit running downhill that I want ... but if members of my government are out being TRO'd, jailed, filling the police blotter and Tazed in the wee hours of the morning, and I ain't doing anything about it???... I can guarentee you the ballot box would not come out in my favor. Ya know, all this trouble started when we added black to our uniforms. Just sayin'. "We badasses!" (Sarcasm)

 

[Growler1]

They'll pay because their student athletes are making the football program look like an embarrassment? They'll pay because two employees couldn't keep their athletics programs out of the police blotter? They'll pay because their contracts weren't renewed? You realize that probably almost all employers don't comment on why people were let go, correct? Keep throwing your little temper tantrums in every thread, but fact is you don't know why Pflu and O'Day were let go, but on the surface it certainly seems like there is just cause, this football program is a dumpster fire that the sports world knows way too much about.

+1

 

[JBS]

Essentially, this means that during the probationary period you may release an employee for no reason but after the probationary period, you must have just cause.

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

Yep... ironically it works in a similiar way in politics. I can pave the streets, fill the potholes, kill the barking dogs, and get all the shit running downhill that I want ... but if members of my government are out being TRO'd, jailed, filling the police blotter and Tazed in the wee hours of the morning, and I ain't doing anything about it???... I can guarentee you the ballot box would not come out in my favor. Ya know, all this trouble started when we added black to our uniforms. Just sayin'. "We badasses!" (Sarcasm)

Ha Ha!! I know that was tounge in cheek, but there is always at least a little bit of truth in humor. I've hated the black since it started.

 

[AZGrizFan]

My son plays for Eastern, I'm an MSU Alum and grew up in Montana, and have Numerous family Grizz Alum, and now live in Seattle. I love the town of Missoula, the magnificant stadium, the Grizz fans and of course how they represent the state of Montana and FCS Football.

Good lord, how do you sleep at night. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[AZGrizFan]

Not when you're under an employment contract. Once the contract expires, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. This is another widespread misconception that employers often hang their hat on. It depends on the language in the contract, on past practice, what the personnel policies read and any number of other factors. The fact is Montana law heavily favors the employee and a Montana employer better have just cause.

Well then that's a piss-poorly worded contract.

Look. If having your employees sign a contract with a start and end date is all you need to get rid of an employee, then all employers would have all employees signing contracts. Business owners who believe that it is that simple are the same ones who believe that if you pay an employee a salary you don't have to pay him over time

Holy Christ that's a simplistic answer to what's being discussed. :? :? :? :? :?