On 1-4-2009 8:35, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/31/2009 2:39 PM, andrel wrote:
>> 20 years of continuous temporary enployment
> 
> There's something _very_ wrong here!
> 
Is there? I didn't notice ;)

I don't have a problem with it. As long as I get a new contract whenever 
the other runs out, I don't see the difference with a fixed position. 
Next month one ends and there is money for another 6 months and in that 
time we should get another grant. If not, we all have a problem.

Post a reply to this message