For a postdoc, a conversation with Human Resources is often a conversation about money. It is the money saved when visiting a museum or dropping your child off at the Child and Family Center (CFC), the money potentially collected for retirement, and the money that ebbs and flows with taxes and tax breaks. From the employee side, what Human Resources offers is part of the reason we chose to work here, and, depending on the individual, part of the reason we can afford to work in New York City. From the University side, the benefits are a financial commitment that brings people here but have to be contained. That being said, the Postdoctoral Association (PDA) recently met with Human Resources to discuss their rationale for how benefits money is spent at Rockefeller University (RU) and how it can help address our needs.

Although RU provides retirement benefits to most of its employees, RU does not provide Postdoctoral Associates or Fellows with either a matching contributory or non-contributory (where there are no deductions from one’s salary) retirement annuity. The primary reason that RU gives for not supplementing retirement is the fact that on a national level, postdocs are considered in training, and not long-term employees. Research Associates, after a two-year waiting period (which can be waived with prior postdoc service), receive a non-contributory annuity.

Human Resources was asked to consider a plan that would give postdoc employees a non-contributory annuity, with the cost being offset by not giving postdocs a salary increase for one year. Enacting this plan faces one significant hurdle: pension law is strict, and it requires all university retirement plans to pass non-discriminatory testing. As such, RU is legally required to either put all postdocs in the retirement plan—which, according to RU’s plan, would require withholding one year’s salary increase—or withholding the plan from all postdocs. As there is a significant push against the plan from foreign postdocs (and it is unknown how many other postdocs would want to forgo a year’s raise), the plan is unlikely to get the ground-swell of support necessary to enact it. Financially, following detailed consideration, it was also determined that this approach was not fiscally feasible: the cost of pension contributions is significantly greater than the savings derived from not giving postdocs a salary increase for one year. Despite not receiving a contributory matching or non-contributory retirement annuity, many postdocs are within the age range that is critical to retirement savings; all postdocs can contribute a portion of their salary to an individual annuity plan via TIAA-CREF or through their bank, and are encouraged to do so.

In years past, the Child and Family Center had a flat, subsidized rate for postdocs. This ended when families (predominantly former postdoc families who had lost their subsidy after being promoted) questioned the fairness of the system, citing anecdotal evidence of postdocs with wealthy spouses getting bargains from the system. Although the anecdotal evidence proved to be the exception, the administration decided that it was unfair to be charging postdocs a flat rate while other employees were charged according to a tiered system based on household earnings. The current dynamic of pricing for the CFC is based on a few principles: 1) The CFC University subsidy has increased each year, and although Rockefeller is willing to share in the cost of running the CFC, it wants to maintain the current subsidy/revenue ratio. 2) There is a desire to keep it affordable for those who earn lower salaries. The latter point is kept in check with the reality that, if the CFC increases costs for high-wage households; those households may choose to find other options. Although cutting services is an additional option to reducing cost across all tiers, so far those who bring their children to the CFC have been vocally against any such cuts.

The current tiered pricing system was designed with postdocs in mind. The lowest tier is meant to be affordable for a postdoc in a single-earner household; the second lowest tier is meant to be affordable for a household with both parents earning a typical postdoc salary. While tiered systems are a hardship to those who inch into a higher pay-scale and charging people a flat percentage of their salary may alleviate this, unfortunately, this is not administratively feasible. Upon request of the PDA, Human Resources considered breaking the current system into subtiers but it would not meet the targeted subsidy/revenue ratio. As the administration meets annually to evaluate the system, we highly encourage postdocs and others to contact Virginia Huffman at via email (note: she had helped establish the earlier subsidized rate and does try to help) to voice any other concerns they have with the pricing of child-care.

When a Postdoctoral Associate becomes a Postdoctoral Fellow, from the standpoint of the IRS, they are no longer considered an employee of Rockefeller. As such, postdocs who become Fellows lose certain benefits afforded to employees of Rockefeller, including the TRIP benefit (which most do not use because postdocs generally live in RU housing and do not have commuting expenses) and the supplemental retirement annuity. While TRIP is a non-recoverable loss of money (contact your Congressman today), one can recover the other benefits by either signing up for them individually (as in the case of retirement benefits) or deducting the costs at tax time. While Human Resources can assist people in knowing what their options are, they do recommend that Postdoctoral Fellows consult a tax advisor.

Finally, Human Resources is aware that financial hardship can strike anyone at any time. Two scholarship funds intended to help postdocs who have financial hardship are available. One of them is specifically intended to help single wage earners while the other is a general fund. If you are in need of financial assistance, approach Human Resources knowing that your request will be confidential.