A remarkable sequence of events occurred on The Rockefeller University (RU) campus over the last few months. It all began with a proposal from the University to remove the postdoc rent subsidy and to increase salaries to compensate for this loss. The response from the postdoc community was immediate and strongly opposed to these changes. The chain of events that led to the alterations of the administration’s plan was a result of the collective action of postdocs and the willingness of the administration to work with the postdoc community to resolve the issue.

The postdoc community united to oppose the loss of rent subsidy

Figure 1: Distribution of 2004 survey respondents

Figure 2: Funding sources for RU postdocs

Figure 3: Average salary by year compared to 2004 and 2005 RU guidelines

The collective action of the postdoc community initiated in a unique manner. The RU Postdoctoral Association (PDA) was established “to represent the interests of [postdocs] directly to The Rockefeller University administration as needed”. Following notification of the administration’s intended changes, the PDA formulated a plan of action in a general meeting with the postdoc community in response to the overwhelming disapproval of the package. After this meeting, however, the postdocs did not receive any communications from the PDA and the September 1 deadline for the proposed changes approached rapidly. For a number of postdocs, this seeming lack of initiative was troubling and resulted in a number of mass emails to the community voicing these concerns and the formation of a separate anonymous group to protest the changes.In addition, a number of postdocs approached the PDA about the actions that were discussed at the general meeting. This group, composed of about thirty concerned postdocs, formed subcommittees to work with the PDA to initiate a number of ideas from the general meeting a month prior. The formation and actions of the subcommittees were crucial in the resulting resolution. One of the first actions of the subcommittees was to perform a survey to determine the actual monetary effect the plan would have on postdocs’ disposable income. The response to the survey was quick and thorough, with 297 of 360 postdocs responding in less than two weeks, and reflected the strong disapproval of the plan, with only 6% of respondents satisfied with the package. The survey data demonstrated that most postdocs would lose a considerable amount of their disposable income with the proposed plan. The respondents represented a range of years (Figure 1) and were funded from a variety of sources (Figure 2). Despite the fact that the changes would be implemented in under a month, the majority of postdocs (64%) did not know if their PI would pay them according to the new guidelines at the time of the survey. One of the most striking findings came from comparing the current average salaries to the current and proposed salary guidelines (Figure 3). These data demonstrated two important points: 1) The salaries were already near the proposed minimums and likely would not change much with the new guidelines; and 2) 10% of postdocs were paid below their current minimums for their year of experience. In terms of rent, the majority of postdocs (88%) lived in RU housing and most (76%) paid 100% of their monthly rent. Very importantly, the survey showed that 45% and 80% of postdocs would lose money in the first and second year of implementation, respectively. Additional calculations of the survey data by Dan Kaplan revealed that the average loss for postdocs would be around $2,500 in the first year.

The month to resolution

With the survey results and a petition protesting the package signed by over 300 postdocs in only two days, the PDA and the subcommittees began a series of meetings with the administration and RU President Paul Nurse. The first meeting involved all of the subcommittee members and lasted three hours while Paul Nurse, Fred Bohen (Executive Vice President), and Alex Kogan (Associate Vice President, Plant Operations and Housing) discussed our concerns. At this meeting, the administration decided to postpone the implementation of the package for one month until a resolution was made. During two additional meetings with the administration, including Human Resources, we further discussed the income loss that postdocs would incur with the new plan. The administration expressed their willingness to work with us to create a plan that would help alleviate the financial burden on the University during these times of economic trouble, while also preventing RU postdocs from incurring a large financial loss. This sentiment was further expressed in the altered plan that Paul Nurse explained to us in our final meeting and to the RU community in late September. The series of meetings that led to a resolution could not have been possible without the unity of the postdoc community and the willingness of the administration to work with the postdoc community to find a solution. Overall, these interactions speak highly of the commitment of Paul Nurse and the RU administration to the postdoc community.