dual careers

Straydog wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006, Russell.Martin RemoveThis @wdn.com wrote:
>
> > Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
> >
> > I met a person a few weeks ago. We got to talking.
> > Turns out said person works where I work, along with
> > said person's spouse. They are moving to another
> > school for postdocs in the sciences. One of them
> > gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
> > due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
> > couples.
> >
> > What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
> > get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
> > one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
> > postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
> > not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
> > of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
>
> Questions that come to my mind:
>
> 1. Did the school "manufacture" a second, half-pay, position for one of
> the spouses?

I can't say for certain, but the impression I got was that is
the case.

> This happens at the faculty level when an incoming guy has
> enough clout that the hiring department makes arrangements, from its own
> budget, to make a position in another department and pay that salary from
> the home department. The home department may even get some "assistance"
> from the dean to "grease" these arrangements.

That happened for me.

> 2. Is it good? I'd ask the people involved if they like what they did. Its
> possible that with jobs being hard for married couples to find a pair of
> likeable jobs where they can still live together that they decided to keep
> the marriage and keep their carreer trajectory "on course."

That's the positive point of view which counteracts Thomas's
position, which is why I'm undecided.

>
> Who gets the best deal? The guys who have all the money, just like its
> always been.
>

Cheers,
Russell
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

"Smith Rhoade" wrote in message

>
> wrote in message
>
> > Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
> >
> > I met a person a few weeks ago..(deleted) One of them
> > gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
> > due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
> > couples.>
> > What say you? > Cheers,
> > Russell
> >
>
> It would be lawful to make only one of them an offer, take it or leave
it.
> It would be lawful to hire both at whatever the customary rate for
postdocs
> in the two fields.
>
> No doubt some fool at the school thinks the school is being very generous
> making such an offer, so both can be employed.
>
> But, the half salary seems to me (IANAL) to be illegal gender
> discrimination.

*IF* you can get them to specify that the woman gets the 1/2 pay.
Can the avoid specifiying who gets the 1/2 pay? I think not.
Each member of the marriage will have to get their own W2.

One strategy might be to accept the position(s) for a few years, file a few
tax returns, and keep a lawer involved during the whole period.

Then sue their asses off - back pay and damages.
Thomas Bartkus
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Smith Rhoade wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> > Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
> >
> > I met a person a few weeks ago..(deleted) One of them
> > gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
> > due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
> > couples.>
> > What say you? > Cheers,
> > Russell
> >
>
> It would be lawful to make only one of them an offer, take it or leave it.
> It would be lawful to hire both at whatever the customary rate for postdocs
> in the two fields.
>
> No doubt some fool at the school thinks the school is being very generous
> making such an offer, so both can be employed.
>
> But, the half salary seems to me (IANAL) to be illegal gender
> discrimination.

An interesting point. The fields are different though, and I
have know idea what sort of uniformity is expected/customary/
required across fields in this case.

Cheers,
Russell
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

On Thu, 4 May 2006, Russell.Martin.TakeThisOut@wdn.com wrote:

> Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
>
> I met a person a few weeks ago. We got to talking.
> Turns out said person works where I work, along with
> said person's spouse. They are moving to another
> school for postdocs in the sciences. One of them
> gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
> due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
> couples.
>
> What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
> get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
> one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
> postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
> not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
> of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.

Questions that come to my mind:

1. Did the school "manufacture" a second, half-pay, position for one of
the spouses? This happens at the faculty level when an incoming guy has
enough clout that the hiring department makes arrangements, from its own
budget, to make a position in another department and pay that salary from
the home department. The home department may even get some "assistance"
from the dean to "grease" these arrangements.
2. Is it good? I'd ask the people involved if they like what they did. Its
possible that with jobs being hard for married couples to find a pair of
likeable jobs where they can still live together that they decided to keep
the marriage and keep their carreer trajectory "on course."

Who gets the best deal? The guys who have all the money, just like its
always been.

> Cheers,
> Russell
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Russell.Martin DeleteThis @wdn.com wrote:
> Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
>
>
> What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
> get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
> one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
> postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
> not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
> of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
>

How is it different from the street robbery? They put the gun to my
stomach and ask for wallet. And here I am thinking: who needs this life
apart from myself and my wife if she is sincere enough of course? It is
win-win - I get my life, they get my wallet and buy their girlfriends
something and the ladies would be pleased. What is wrong with that?
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Old Pif wrote:
> Russell.Martin.RemoveThis@wdn.com wrote:
> > Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
> >
> >
> > What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
> > get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
> > one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
> > postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
> > not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
> > of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
> >
>
> How is it different from the street robbery? They put the gun to my
> stomach and ask for wallet. And here I am thinking: who needs this life
> apart from myself and my wife if she is sincere enough of course? It is
> win-win - I get my life, they get my wallet and buy their girlfriends
> something and the ladies would be pleased. What is wrong with that?

Your irony is groundless. The scenario you offered is actually
beneficial for the American economy, therefore is good.
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Straydog wrote:

> I actually thought Old Pif's "joke" (or should I say "irony") was pretty good.

Yes. It was good. And I extended it further. The robber gets your
money, and spends them for the gifts for his girlfriend. Spending money
is good for the economy. Roobbing is good for the economy, therefore
for the Americal people. Your own feelings do not count.
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

On Fri, 5 May 2006, S. 'Trash' Ny Qui wrote:

>
> Old Pif wrote:
>> Russell.Martin.DeleteThis@wdn.com wrote:
>>> Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
>>>
>>>
>>> What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
>>> get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
>>> one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
>>> postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
>>> not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
>>> of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
>>>
>>
>> How is it different from the street robbery? They put the gun to my
>> stomach and ask for wallet. And here I am thinking: who needs this life
>> apart from myself and my wife if she is sincere enough of course? It is
>> win-win - I get my life, they get my wallet and buy their girlfriends
>> something and the ladies would be pleased. What is wrong with that?
>
> Your irony is groundless. The scenario you offered is actually
> beneficial for the American economy, therefore is good.
>

Hah! This sounds like Bill Gates when he said, while promoting his
software in a commericial, on our television some years ago, something
like this: "And, any kid today can become a millionaire off this stuff"
and I took a deep breath as I pondered that quite a few people fell for
this joke and BG conveniently left out the fact that his monopoly was
already in existence and caused thousands of small software efforts to go
into the garbage can.

I actually thought Old Pif's "joke" (or should I say "irony") was pretty
good.

Forget the platitudes, forget the touchy-feelie. Just look for two
answers: i) who ends up getting all the money? and ii) where does it come
from?
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

S. 'Trash' Ny Qui wrote:
>
> And I extended it further. The robber gets your
> money, and spends them for the gifts for his girlfriend. Spending money
> is good for the economy. Robing is good for the economy, therefore
> for the American people. Your own feelings do not count.
>

Before Russel posted this news I thought that academy hit the moral
rock bottom already. I turn out to be wrong. Apparently you can always
fall lower than you are. Everywhere in the world both governments and
the universities are trying to help students during their year of
studies when they don't have money by providing cheap or discount
accommodation, books and all the rest for the lowest price possible.

Here how it looks in the US universities:

Students of the Business school my kid have graduated from, which is by
the way a part of a State University for which my taxes go, are forced
to buy laptops for a price 4 (!!!!) higher than the market price. No
buy - no graduation.

Many universities at least in the North East area force the students to
live in their dormitories that are substantially more expensive than
what they can rent in surrounding area. The living in campus is
mandatory for at least first two years.

One of the best racketeering cases belongs to couple of famous Boston
Universities that forbid students to uses their own freezers forcing
then to rent it from the university for exuberant price.

But unbeatable example is the situation with medical interns that are
forced to work for 100-140 hours per week in time of internship such
that legislators were forced some time ago to curb it but it is not
effective. Only when intern falls asleep with scalpel in his hands it
might have some consequences.

And the list goes on and on.

I am just curios where all that Christians in the University boards?
There is widespread believe apparently wrong that to get advantage over
person in difficult situation is morally reprehensible.
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Old Pif wrote:
> S. 'Trash' Ny Qui wrote:
> >
> > And I extended it further. The robber gets your
> > money, and spends them for the gifts for his girlfriend. Spending money
> > is good for the economy. Robing is good for the economy, therefore
> > for the American people. Your own feelings do not count.
> >
>
> Before Russel posted this news I thought that academy hit the moral
> rock bottom already. I turn out to be wrong. Apparently you can always
> fall lower than you are. Everywhere in the world both governments and
> the universities are trying to help students during their year of
> studies when they don't have money by providing cheap or discount
> accommodation, books and all the rest for the lowest price possible.
>
> Here how it looks in the US universities:
>
> Students of the Business school my kid have graduated from, which is by
> the way a part of a State University for which my taxes go, are forced
> to buy laptops for a price 4 (!!!!) higher than the market price. No
> buy - no graduation.

Now it is my turn to express shock at how low things
have gone. A number of years ago I went back to visit
my alma mater and was invited to dinner by one of
my former advisors. We had a wonderful discussion
about many subjects. Toward the end he brought
up the changes on the campus, including the wiring
of all the dorm rooms for a campus network, and
asked my opinion of whether they should require
students to purchase PCs, IIRC at cost, or be allowed
to basically rent them. He was somewhat conflicted
about imposing additional costs on the students, but
it was a big budget item for a small college, too.

>
> Many universities at least in the North East area force the students to
> live in their dormitories that are substantially more expensive than
> what they can rent in surrounding area. The living in campus is
> mandatory for at least first two years.
>
> One of the best racketeering cases belongs to couple of famous Boston
> Universities that forbid students to uses their own freezers forcing
> then to rent it from the university for exuberant price.
>
> But unbeatable example is the situation with medical interns that are
> forced to work for 100-140 hours per week in time of internship such
> that legislators were forced some time ago to curb it but it is not
> effective. Only when intern falls asleep with scalpel in his hands it
> might have some consequences.
>
> And the list goes on and on.
>
> I am just curios where all that Christians in the University boards?
> There is widespread believe apparently wrong that to get advantage over
> person in difficult situation is morally reprehensible.

Hypocrisy is rampant.

Cheers,
Russell
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

In article ,
Russell.Martin.RemoveThis@wdn.com wrote:

In my experiences, this is an example of your last option: the weak
employment situation for scientists. Another example of
under-employment compounded by lack of progress in addressing the dual
career problem.

B. Martin

> Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
>
> I met a person a few weeks ago. We got to talking.
> Turns out said person works where I work, along with
> said person's spouse. They are moving to another
> school for postdocs in the sciences. One of them
> gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
> due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
> couples.
>
> What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
> get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
> one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
> postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
> not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
> of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
>
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

Industry can have these quirks too.
Sometimes they'll help jobs for spouses.
Others may have prohibitions on working in
same department or field office.
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers 

And, here is a funny comment to make, related to below. My wife told me
yesterday some friend of hers has a PhD daughter and PhD son in law just
finishing postdocs and, guess what, they want to contact me by private
email to help them find jobs. I'll offer to help them _hunt_ for jobs, but
not _find_ them.

On Fri, 5 May 2006, marti285 DeleteThis @umn.edu wrote:

> In article ,
> Russell.Martin DeleteThis @wdn.com wrote:
>
> In my experiences, this is an example of your last option: the weak
> employment situation for scientists. Another example of
> under-employment compounded by lack of progress in addressing the dual
> career problem.
>
> B. Martin
>
>> Here's something that is actually on topic (gasp!).
>>
>> I met a person a few weeks ago. We got to talking.
>> Turns out said person works where I work, along with
>> said person's spouse. They are moving to another
>> school for postdocs in the sciences. One of them
>> gets a postdoc, the other gets a postdoc at half salary
>> due to the school's enlightened policy on dual career
>> couples.
>>
>> What say you? Is this a win-win because both people
>> get jobs in their fields using their degrees (instead of
>> one of them flipping burgers) while the school gets 2
>> postdocs for the price of 1.5, or is it another, although
>> not as egregious as some, example of the poor state
>> of employment in the sciences? I'm undecided.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Russell
>>
>
 >> Stay informed about: dual careers