andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> - This week a national magazine (Vrij Nederland) ran an article making 
> the point was that public funded institutions (like universities and 
> hospitals) use all sort of tricks to circumvent laws and among other 
> things keep employees longer on temporary positions than legal.

I have noticed something similar here in Finland.

Finnish law has quite strict statutes protecting employees. Firstly,
you can't just fire an employee for no reason; the reason for firing
someone must be justified. (This means in practice that if someone
gets fired without good reason, they have a legal standing to sue
the employer.)

Secondly, even with a good and acceptable reason the employer must
give a notification to the employee three months in advance. (In
other words, unless the firm goes outright bankcrupt overnight or
there are other catastrophic reasons that the company cannot keep
paying an employee, they have to keep the employee for three more
months.) It's just not possible for an employer to go to an employee
and tell them "no need to come back tomorrow, you're fired" just like
that.

But of course many companies have found a way around both problems.
You see, rather than making permanent employment contracts, they make
extremely short temporary contracts that they just renew over and over
again for as long as the employee is hired. These temporary contracts
are typically for periods of three to even just one month.

You see, you can't fire somebody without good reason. However, there's
no law that forces an employer to renew a temporary contract. This means
that if the employer just wants to fire someone, they simply stop
renewing. They only have to keep paying the salary for the remaining
of the current contract (which is often much less than 3 months.)

There *is* a law that somewhat handles this, that says something along
the lines that temporary contracts can only be renewed a certain number
of times before the employee must be contracted on a permanent basis,
but seemingly this is hard to enforce and nobody does. (One would
think that labor unions would be all over this, but apparently not.
Although I suppose it depends on the labor union. Some are much, much
stronger than others.)

I have heard of people being employed for *years* with constantly-renewed
three-month and even two-month contracts, even though this ought to be
a legally questionable thing to do.

(At least these employees get all the same legal benefits as those who
have a permanent contract, eg. in terms of holydays and legal protection.
However, they have to live in constant fear that their employer one day
decides not to renew.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 20:29, andrel wrote:
>>> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
>>> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.
>>
>> Did you know what the prize was when you were entered?
>
> Yes. There will be a party/symposium to draw attention to the situation
> later this year. The price was that someone is going to pick me up to go
> there. (no money, no cup, not even a contract will be awarded) National
> coverage was not foreseen, but a nice bonus.

I do hope that you and the runner up tell the press and they kick up a 
fuss.

National Press Headline.

*Unlinnenbank Linnenbank*

As an aside. When I translated the article on the web. I got a Latin 
translation. Shameful I could read the Dutch one better.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Again the Monetary System and its "creative" ways to improve the profit 
of a company at the expense of employees, but some people will argue 
money isn't the source of most corruption. At least your Country is 
doing something about it, I hope it's enough noise to actually solve it.

1 more reason for me to advocate for TheVenusProject.com and The 
ZeitgeistMovement.com and similar efforts, which is simply better 
resource distribution mechanisms, as people worldwide is realizing how 
bad capitalism if for Humanity.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 0:04, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Again the Monetary System and its "creative" ways to improve the profit
> of a company at the expense of employees,

FYI I was a scientist working at an institute of the Royal Netherlands 
Academy of Arts and Sciences, not exactly a capitalistic multinational. 
The situation is a lot more subtle and complex than you suggest.

-- 
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

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?

Post a reply to this message

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