The Postdoctoral Association (PDA) Representative Committee would like to thank each of the 211 people who took the time to complete our latest survey on housing and salaries among the Postdoctoral Fellow/Associate and Research Associate (RA) population at Rockefeller. Of the 211 respondents, 181 were Postdoctoral Fellows/Associates and 29 were Research Associates. This is an enormous turnout, and we hope that we can count on you in the future as we continue to do surveys to update this information on a roughly biannual basis.

A total of 189 respondents live in RU housing; 110 of those have renewed their leases since July 1, 2006, and are thus affected by the new rent structures that have been implemented. For those who are unaware of this process, last year the university completed an appraisal of its housing properties, partly at the request of the PDA Representative Committee. This entire situation dates back over two and a half years ago. In summer 2004, the university decided to eliminate postdoc housing subsidies. The administration’s position was that the subsidies (15% of rent) are illegal, as they are basically under-the-table increases in salary for postdocs and therefore subject to taxation. Through subsequent negotiations with the PDA, it was agreed that salaries would be increased to compensate for the increased rent, and those postdocs whose appointment dates were before September 1, 2004, (the effective date of the subsidy removal) would continue to receive rent subsidies. During these negotiations, the PDA requested that the university determine whether the subsidies exceed tax-code-specified percentages of rents, and therefore are subject to income tax. A campus-wide assessment of university-owned housing units was commissioned, and a basis for new rents was determined. Beginning July 1, 2006, new leases (and lease renewals) utilized the new rental rate schedule. The PDA therefore wanted to know how these rents are affecting postdocs/RAs, and whether the changes were consistent across the board.

Of the 110 respondents who have renewed their leases since July 1, 2006, 62 gave both their old and new rents. Exactly half of those respondents, 31, are not eligible for the subsidy and the other half are eligible. Of those ineligible for a rent subsidy (based on their later appointment date at RU), 16 had their rent decrease, 10 had their rent increase, and 4 had their rent remain the same. Most of the increases in the non-subsidy group were of less than $100 a month. Of the rent decreases, eight were over $100 a month, with the highest differences in the E. 70th Street building, where the largest decrease was $523 a month for a studio. Among those eligible for the subsidy, none had their rent decrease, and seven of them had increases of $100 a month or greater. However, some of those large increases were for RAs; it is not clear what portion of that increase might be due to loss of the housing subsidy (RAs are not eligible for a subsidy, regardless of appointment date). By far, the greatest number of the 62 respondents live in a one bedroom apartment (32), and the largest number live in Faculty House (20).

There were several complaints about dealing with the housing office during the renewal process. Mostly these concerned timely receipt of new leases and amounts of new rents. For the recent lease renewals, only 75 respondents reported receiving a new lease document with the rent and effective date, and ten said they did not receive a new lease. Of those 75 with documents, 44 received them before the effective date with enough time to return the signed lease, 31 did not. This is not consistent with housing office policy of sending all tenants lease renewals in a timely fashion. It also interfered with the ability of some tenants to send a check with any increased amount of security deposit before the lease renewal went into effect. Some respondents complained about the fact that their electricity charges are not included in their rent. General comments about the housing office included several complaints about not hearing from housing personnel in a timely fashion, waiting for apartments longer than originally advertised, and a lack of transparency in assigning apartments. Many people used the words “lack of competency,” “unsympathetic,” “slow,” and words to that effect, to describe dealing with the housing office. Many respondents seem to have the feeling that housing does not deal equally with every applicant, and that they are not efficient at their jobs. Certainly, the lack of lease renewal documents signed by tenants is indicative of poor management and inefficiency.

We also asked questions about the university’s ResNet broadband Internet service available in Rockefeller housing. Of the 162 who responded, 98 have the service in their building, and 12 have not heard of it. Many respondents complained that they had been promised this service (especially at 70th Street) since January 2006, and yet still did not have it. As of this writing, 70th Street has had Internet installed. 92 people reported using the ResNet service, and 43 people said that they use video or voice over Internet (VOIP) services such as Skype and Vonage. Several people commented that the download and upload speeds are very inconsistent, and the slowest times correlate with times when most people are at home. One person reported being almost completely unable to upload pictures to sites such as Flickr and Google Picasa (thirteen people reported using such services). Eleven people said they use Web hosting and design services through this connection. It seems that the current bandwidth allocated is not sufficient for the peak traffic this network experiences. There is no information on this service available through the housing or information technology Web sites; it seems the only documentation available was the handout sent to each apartment when the service was installed. This packet only contains information on installation and connection, and has no other information about IP addresses, bandwidth, or who to contact with problems or questions. Tenants should have access to better information about the service.

We are also keeping apprised of the number of postdocs who are within the RU suggested ranges for stipends/salaries. All postdocs who have had an appointment or reappointment as of July 1, 2006, or later should have their salaries in the ranges prescribed for the fiscal year 2007. For the most part, these individuals do have salaries within the new ranges, with some exceptions (see table). As a reminder to all postdocs, you have a right to have your salary within these ranges. If your salary is not, you can talk to Maria Lazzaro in Human Resources, who is in charge of academic appointments.

Once again, thank you to all who responded to this survey. We hope that you continue to participate in the future, so that we can take this information to the administration in order to advocate for everyone. If ever you have a question or a problem, the PDA is here to help you. Please contact us at with any questions, concerns, or even information you think we should know.