UC postdocs get a little help from CongressCritters
June 28, 2010
The University of California has been negotiating with a postdoctoral union over many issues of compensation. Unsurprisingly one of their favorite tactics when dealing with student / transient employee concerns is to delay.
The postdocs have an interesting set of allies, namely George Miller (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) of the House Education and Labor Committee.
Science Careers blog notes:
three Bay area Congressional representatives faxed a letter to Gene Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative arm in matters concerning public funds. They ask the agency to look into “how universities, including the University of California, track how funds provided for laboratory research grants are spent.” …UC has cited a purported inability to determine “the costs of proposals to increase the compensation” of postdocs as a reason for negotiating delays, the letter continues. The inexplicable difficulty of one of the world’s great research institution to figure out how much it pays its own employees “raises serious questions” about UC’s–and possibly other universities’–ability to track research funds in general, the letter goes on.
…
The not-very-veiled implication appears to be that UC might find it less unpleasant to settle with the postdocs than to tangle with the committee. With the next negotiating meeting scheduled for Wednesday, the next installment of the saga may be about to play out.
hahaha. Yeah, I dunno about that. I wonder if Congress can lay a finger on the accountant magickery that disposes of overhead funds.
June 30, 2010 at 5:35 am
Oh, wonderful! I’d love to see a few universities get their rears handed to them.
Just in case they’re unclear what working conditions are like for post-docs, please send them a copy of this letter: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/25/i-have-noticed-that.html
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 10:21 am
Anon,
Dude, that letter is old, literally as well as figuratively.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I think the Mu-Ming Poo letter is more entertaining:
http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/Print.aspx?id=209261
At least Poo seems not to be a sociopath, but that Caltech fuck-up is a fucking sicko.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Wait, doesn’t everyone get letters like this from their PI?
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I never got it in writing, Becca. I got called into my PI’s office to be told: “We [the various PIs] don’t think any of you [grad students] are working enough. When we leave at 6 or 7 many times you’ve all left.”
It was a fun conversation because of this “Well OK [me to my PI], but when I get to work at 8 am every day none of you are here?”
“Well, if we’re not here we don’t know that you’re working.”
“Well ok and weekends too I guess?”
I can only assume the point of that conversation was some sort of pep talk to fire me up and have some positive impact on my research. Surely the goal wasn’t to make my general hatred of life spread to include the PIs of my department.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 4:37 pm
My PI is irked with the whole department for not working his hours (8-7 M-F and 9-12 on Saturday), thus making him seem like ‘the bad guy’ when he wants me to work more hours.
I consider this PI to be a good PI since he’s not telling me to do something he won’t do himself. Also, I frankly prefer the transparency of having it written down, rather than getting the same old BS about “you just need to make progress” (which is fine, when experiments work like they are supposed to, i.e. never for me).
I still want to smash things (or myself) everytime my PI gets upset I’m not in by 9am (particularly when the roolet wakes me up 3+ times/night).
JohnV- I think the point of the ‘pep talk’ was twofold:
1) make sure the PIs felt like they’d done some managing, thus relieving them of some of the stress from not being perfect at the eternally unfinishable task of actually motivating people and helping them over stumbling blocks
2) reinforce social hierarchy
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I think this is an interesting discussion. I also think that Poo’s demands were the expectation (though with variations for field — not all fields can reasonably expect weekend lab work, some require all-nighters, others that you work on the schedule of availability of some shared instrument or another). Roughly, 60 hours a week, mostly on data generation until you have something to say, more on intellectual energy when you don’t.
Of course, this is the expectation for a student/post-doc who wants to join the tournament for a PI. I think what these lab heads (we have 3 letters now) are facing is the recognition by many of their students that they’re not going to make it in the tournament. Once that happens, they don’t have sufficient leverage to keep those hours for the pay being offered. Then, unfortunately, foreign students, and their limited visas starts to play a significant role. And, that, I do worry about. An American student can leave the tournament at Caltech, Berkeley, or wherever. The foreign student is more ripe for what is real exploitation, and I’ve been on the periphery of some disturbing stories.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Of course, they say “the same old BS about “you just need to make progress”” so that they can’t run afoul of any rules. The occasional unionized student employee must have rules that govern how many hours they can be demanded to work. But no one can prevent you from saying that you just “need to make progress.”
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Most science does not work this simple way (plug and chug data through some stupid machine). Most science works by innovation, invention, and discovery. Yes, data collection is important, but so is thinking. It may be that these letters (are they not jokes? they look like jokes to me) are addressing a rare case where in fact data collection is the problem. But if not, then they show a remarkable lack of individual training for a student (and that’s the real problem in my book).
Whimple #8, the reason that graduate programs rate student success by “you just need to make progress” is that it allows flexibility to handle a variety of situations. Yes, it does leave open exploitation by some faculty, but in my experience, this is very rare. Most cases of accused exploitation are due to students not seeing the big picture of a faculty really trying to help them. If science were this easy, it’d be a business, we’d sell results to customers, and we wouldn’t have to dance these grant look-what-we’re-going-to-do/oh-we-did-something-else-but-its-still-important jigs all the time. In my experience, the danger of exploitation is better handled by having an appeals processes and the availability of additional faculty in a department rather than legal rules that trap students and faculty in positions they don’t want to be. (For example, my department requires that the chair of the thesis committee be different from the advisor.)
As faculty, we need to judge students by progress, not by time-spent. Just as I refuse to count my hours for the university. (Do you count the hours bashing my head on my screen because the data doesn’t make sense or do you count the 10 seconds when I’m walking my kid in the park and figure it all out?) Of course, when progress is weak, it’s hard to know what the problem is or how to fix it. Sometimes, it is a matter of not doing the effort of data collection. But sometimes it is a matter of too much data collection and not enough sitting back to think about the problem. This is why we work by an apprenticeship system and training is done on an individual basis.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm
#8 was my usual whiny tone, but wasn’t in fact me. 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Whimple #10 (for real, this time). I apologize. I think I was looking at two different posts. That should have been “neurolover #8…”
again, sorry ’bout that!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Woah, I must be a lousy PI. I let everyone work an 8-ish hour day unless their experiment keeps them there. I like results and progress, but I hate labs with researchers chained to the bench. Hey I am lazy. I try to instill clever laziness in my students. Laziness inspires creativity.
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 5:39 am
This guy was [allegation of impropriety regarding a trainee redacted-DM]. Now she’s a professor at Berkeley
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 8:05 am
Justin,
I don’t know if your comment is ironic or not. I don’t think it is appropriate and don’t appreciate it.
LikeLike