On 23-9-2014 21:21, andrel wrote:
> Technically I was not all that time with one employer, though for the
> last 9 years I was full time at the same desk with the same group of
> people. Before that mostly full time but also sometimes only part time
> in the AMC. So, I was more than 25 years doing basically the same work
> at the same place, but only the last 2 contracts and last 4 years count,
> so they are safe. (losing a lot of knowledge and experience, but who
> cares). If this had been a private company, it would be illegal as well.
>
> In science we often need longer times. First as a PhD student (which is
> a job here) then as a post-doc. Sometimes post-doc's still need to
> finish things after a project so there is a need for extending temporary
> contracts. Problems start to arise when the post-doc, besides her
> project, has to take on structural tasks to keep the department running.
> We are all aware that the system is broken, but nobody is take serious
> action. They just let the lawyers think up a way to circumvent the law
> for a couple of years. And when that is forbidden, try something else.

I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3 
years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position 
was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe 
so it was in the past? I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in 
that direction when I was employed.

What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of 
age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but 
your age, you know, your age...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
> your age, you know, your age...

It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no 
employment rights other than getting paid.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>> your age, you know, your age...
>
> It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no
> employment rights other than getting paid.
>

I think that makes a difference indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better pay?

The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care, 
education, and research (the three areas of my work).

The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees. 
That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop 
assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special 
rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that 
research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one 
finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original 
law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case 
the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my 
time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large 
group of people.

Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a 
freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money 
should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for 
specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly 
and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if 
already for years I have been warning them that they should also include 
technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do 
it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too 
much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change. 
So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble now).

Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed 
the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to 
be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That 
budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all 
universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of 
people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of 
the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less 
over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new 
people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I 
would now be a 'new hire'.

See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation 
without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the 
simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we 
hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer. 
Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear 
that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.

I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as 
overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at 
the end.

One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government 
is taking money away from the universities and giving it to 
organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and 
redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That 
direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both 
scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing 
the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is 
applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also 
used in English?).

Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this 
way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have 
the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them, 
and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is 
the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an 
impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 21:21, andrel wrote:
>> Technically I was not all that time with one employer, though for the
>> last 9 years I was full time at the same desk with the same group of
>> people. Before that mostly full time but also sometimes only part time
>> in the AMC. So, I was more than 25 years doing basically the same work
>> at the same place, but only the last 2 contracts and last 4 years count,
>> so they are safe. (losing a lot of knowledge and experience, but who
>> cares). If this had been a private company, it would be illegal as well.
>>
>> In science we often need longer times. First as a PhD student (which is
>> a job here) then as a post-doc. Sometimes post-doc's still need to
>> finish things after a project so there is a need for extending temporary
>> contracts. Problems start to arise when the post-doc, besides her
>> project, has to take on structural tasks to keep the department running.
>> We are all aware that the system is broken, but nobody is take serious
>> action. They just let the lawyers think up a way to circumvent the law
>> for a couple of years. And when that is forbidden, try something else.
>
> I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3
> years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position
> was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe
> so it was in the past?

that sort of rules are still in place. In my situation the rules 
apparently do not apply because I have switched employers (... -> KNAW 
-> AMC -> KNAW) and then counting starts anew each time. That I have 
been doing the same thing in the same group does not count. Or so they 
claim.
(BTW I published also some thoughts related to this at 
https://magazine.thepostonline.nl/#!/Een-pleidooi-voor-meer-slow-science 
which you should also be able to find via blendle.nl . ALso available 
from my website bytehouwer.nl/slowscience.pdf, but it is in Dutch. If 
there is any demand for it I will make a translation, Google makes a 
mess of it)

> I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in
> that direction when I was employed.

Are you unemployed yourself? Or just retired or switched to a different job?


> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
> your age, you know, your age...

I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have 
to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 09:01, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>>> your age, you know, your age...
>>
>> It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no
>> employment rights other than getting paid.
>>
>
> I think that makes a difference indeed.
>
>

Fortunately for me.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
>> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
>> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
>> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
>> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better pay?
>
> The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
> There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care,
> education, and research (the three areas of my work).
>
> The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees.
> That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop
> assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special
> rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that
> research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one
> finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original
> law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case
> the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my
> time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large
> group of people.
>
> Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a
> freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money
> should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for
> specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly
> and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if
> already for years I have been warning them that they should also include
> technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do
> it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too
> much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change.
> So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble
> now).
>
> Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed
> the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to
> be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That
> budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all
> universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of
> people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of
> the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less
> over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new
> people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I
> would now be a 'new hire'.

Thanks for you public service,as a citizen of the World. I understand 
your situation and it wasn't much different to the one I had in mind.

> See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation
> without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the
> simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we
> hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer.
> Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear
> that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.

Now I'll explain to you how you're wrong: you referred to capitalism 
without you even noticing it: money and budget, hire, new hire, grant, 
etc. The mechanism is rather simple, the more "over-budget", that's what 
they say, universities are the less they have to hire permanent 
personnel, more temps and more money for the universities, of course 
they have to play the victim, is the best excuse ever, they appeal to 
human compassion and charity, emotional blackmail so you don't go 
investigating their accounting books, kinda of BS probably. It is simple 
unfortunately, capitalism underlays everything and so the 1% people 
owning 95% of it worldwide. That you don't or don't want to see this, 
it's your fault. If the work was for your Gov., it should have made sure 
you get enough of everything.

> I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as
> overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at
> the end.

And here you contradict yourself, and I'm being not intelligent? and 
believe me, I care little what people think of me, like you they're more 
inclined to their own judgement of what I'm about or the ideas and 
spread or have and not what I'm and my ideas actually about, and this 
begs the question Is this because I have correct you on my previous and 
you didn't liked this? I think probably it is, doesn't it?

> One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government
> is taking money away from the universities and giving it to
> organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and
> redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That
> direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both
> scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing
> the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is
> applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also
> used in English?).

Science should have a saying about what needs to be researched, not just 
the Gov. and directing science like that it's too inquisitive IMO and 
bad for the people, since money people that manipulate your Gov, has 
control of what is researched covering up all that is inconvenient for 
them, forcing selective research so the scientist will never have the 
big picture of the wrong doings of the Industry. And since the Industry 
is being subsidized by your Gov. do they get regulated by it giving good 
prices and services? I hope so, because it'd be only fair.

The term I in English is valuation, I'm not from USA but from Bolivia, 
so the term is very similar to the Spanish 1: 
http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=valorizaci%C3%B3n

> Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this
> way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have
> the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them,
> and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is
> the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an
> impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.

That's 1 example of many I have read about

So you write this long text to someone that you qualify as impossible to 
debate with? it's a bit contradictory, don't you think?

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 10:43, andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 9:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3
>> years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position
>> was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe
>> so it was in the past?
>
> that sort of rules are still in place. In my situation the rules
> apparently do not apply because I have switched employers (... -> KNAW
> -> AMC -> KNAW) and then counting starts anew each time. That I have
> been doing the same thing in the same group does not count. Or so they
> claim.

Yes, that is the trick of course and often they are deliberately misused 
in that way. Not much one can do about that.

> (BTW I published also some thoughts related to this at
> https://magazine.thepostonline.nl/#!/Een-pleidooi-voor-meer-slow-science
> which you should also be able to find via blendle.nl . ALso available
> from my website bytehouwer.nl/slowscience.pdf, but it is in Dutch. If
> there is any demand for it I will make a translation, Google makes a
> mess of it)
>
>> I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in
>> that direction when I was employed.
>
> Are you unemployed yourself? Or just retired or switched to a different
> job?

I am currently officially retired, at 68. However, I was 57 when I was 
'sacked' (I do not much like the term) together with a dozen others at 
our TNO institute because we did not generate enough external funding. 
Needless to say that that is rather difficult for an earth sciences 
research scientist. To be fair, I must say that I was treated very 
fairly, I had the backing of the syndicate, and was offered an early 
retirement under very acceptable conditions. To tell the truth, I was 
quite glad to quit working as I was beginning to have work-related 
health problems.

>
>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>> your age, you know, your age...
>
> I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have
> to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.
>

Yes, I believe that sums up the situation indeed. Americans would 
probably call this a new opportunities situation (and they are not 
wrong) but in Europe we have a different approach to this, especially 
the older generations. We always believed more in stable job continuity 
and job protection.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

The point of my long post was to explain that a government can never 
finance all the things she would want to do. At least at this moment in 
time ours can't. So yes it is all about money and no capitalism is not 
directly involved. Indirectly of course companies are lobbying but so do 
the labour organizations and the churches.
I have long passed the day when I though everything was black and white. 
One day you might do that as well.

On 24-9-2014 13:19, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
>>> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
>>> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
>>> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
>>> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better
>>> pay?
>>
>> The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
>> There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care,
>> education, and research (the three areas of my work).
>>
>> The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees.
>> That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop
>> assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special
>> rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that
>> research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one
>> finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original
>> law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case
>> the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my
>> time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large
>> group of people.
>>
>> Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a
>> freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money
>> should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for
>> specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly
>> and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if
>> already for years I have been warning them that they should also include
>> technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do
>> it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too
>> much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change.
>> So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble
>> now).
>>
>> Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed
>> the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to
>> be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That
>> budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all
>> universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of
>> people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of
>> the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less
>> over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new
>> people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I
>> would now be a 'new hire'.
>
> Thanks for you public service,as a citizen of the World. I understand
> your situation and it wasn't much different to the one I had in mind.
>
>> See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation
>> without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the
>> simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we
>> hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer.
>> Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear
>> that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.
>
> Now I'll explain to you how you're wrong: you referred to capitalism
> without you even noticing it: money and budget, hire, new hire, grant,
> etc. The mechanism is rather simple, the more "over-budget", that's what
> they say, universities are the less they have to hire permanent
> personnel, more temps and more money for the universities, of course
> they have to play the victim, is the best excuse ever, they appeal to
> human compassion and charity, emotional blackmail so you don't go
> investigating their accounting books, kinda of BS probably. It is simple
> unfortunately, capitalism underlays everything and so the 1% people
> owning 95% of it worldwide. That you don't or don't want to see this,
> it's your fault. If the work was for your Gov., it should have made sure
> you get enough of everything.
>
>> I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as
>> overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at
>> the end.
>
> And here you contradict yourself, and I'm being not intelligent? and
> believe me, I care little what people think of me, like you they're more
> inclined to their own judgement of what I'm about or the ideas and
> spread or have and not what I'm and my ideas actually about, and this
> begs the question Is this because I have correct you on my previous and
> you didn't liked this? I think probably it is, doesn't it?
>
>> One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government
>> is taking money away from the universities and giving it to
>> organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and
>> redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That
>> direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both
>> scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing
>> the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is
>> applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also
>> used in English?).
>
> Science should have a saying about what needs to be researched, not just
> the Gov. and directing science like that it's too inquisitive IMO and
> bad for the people, since money people that manipulate your Gov, has
> control of what is researched covering up all that is inconvenient for
> them, forcing selective research so the scientist will never have the
> big picture of the wrong doings of the Industry. And since the Industry
> is being subsidized by your Gov. do they get regulated by it giving good
> prices and services? I hope so, because it'd be only fair.
>
> The term I in English is valuation, I'm not from USA but from Bolivia,
> so the term is very similar to the Spanish 1:
> http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=valorizaci%C3%B3n
>
>> Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this
>> way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have
>> the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them,
>> and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is
>> the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an
>> impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.
>
> That's 1 example of many I have read about
>
> So you write this long text to someone that you qualify as impossible to
> debate with? it's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

And you jump to conclusion again, I never wrote it was black and white, 
it's all a infinite amount of shades of corruption, depending the risk 
and how dirty you want to get, the idea that you have of what your Gov. 
can or can't do it a notion, for sure not the truth, unless you have 
seen the accounting books and how everything is spent in detail, they 
won't allow that ever, as long as the 1% has your Gov. in their pay 
role, that's the effect that we see around the World, hence evidence 
that my idea, shared my millions if not billions, it's not probably far 
away from the truth.

Post a reply to this message