The recent PDA general meeting, held on August 19, became a rallying ground for Postdocs opposed to the University’s widely unpopular rent subsidy elimination proposal. Virginia Huffman, Maria Lazzaro and Dorian Johnson, while addressing specific concerns raised by the audience, sensed the immense feeling of discontent that has been building among Postdocs ever since the official announcement of the proposal on July 12, 2004.

The Meeting: University answers directly to Postdocs
The proposal is unpopular because the University has never stated clearly how they will ensure Postdocs are not worse off financially as a result of the proposed changes. While many other aspects of the proposal are clearly stated, the lack of written procedures that would guarantee the financial well-being of Postdocs was an issue that was intensely debated at the meeting. This topic became the focal point around which the Postdocs united and led to a vociferous demand for a written guarantee from the University. In response to this overwhelming show of unity, Virginia Huffman, Associate Vice President of Human Resources, agreed to provide a memorandum that will state the University’s guarantee that ‘no Postdoc will be worse off’. At the end of the meeting, Postdocs got together and formed ‘task forces’, each group with a specific assignment. The collective goal of these groups is to ensure that a written guarantee is sent to Postdocs and that the University implements it.

The meeting was called because the University wanted to address the concerns of the Postdocs directly. With precise information about loss of subsidy and new salary in its possession, the University was in a position to answer specific questions the Postdocs had.

“We feel disrespected…” was a comment from the audience, referring to the limited information the University provided the Postdoc community during this entire process. The University knows the exact shortfall (where applicable) individual Postdocs will experience, and the amount of additional salary the PIs or the ‘hardship fund’ needs to provide. The University’s reluctance to provide this information in writing to individual Postdocs and outline mechanisms that will guarantee additional compensation is disconcerting to most. It is an indication, many Postdocs feel, that the University is not committed to making sure Postdocs get compensated in a timely and fair manner.

PDA’s role before the meeting
There has been considerable debate about the PDA’s role during this process. Postdocs have questioned the effectiveness of the PDA and subjected its actions to intense scrutiny. Some Postdocs have blamed the PDA for being inactive and slow, while the proposal cleared its way through the academic council and academic senate. Others have questioned why the PDA never demanded a written guarantee from the University.

The new PDA adopted a policy of ‘no Postdoc should be worse off’, ever since they came together as a group in early May. The PDA did not approve the proposal when it was first presented in a meeting with Dr. Paul Nurse on April 28, 2004, nor in subsequent meetings with University officials. The PDA maintained that an approval was feasible only after evaluation of the actual numbers and extensive feedback from the Postdoc community. Since then, the PDA has been very active in identifying potential problems with the new proposal. To assess the overall effect on the Postdoc community, the PDA requested the University to provide a comprehensive list of how every Postdoc will be affected by the changes. When the Human Resources (HR) department failed to provide this information, the PDA requested Postdocs to calculate their net take home pay (taking the changes into account) before the general meeting on July 12, 2004. It became clear during that meeting that many Postdocs stood to lose income, unless their salaries were increased considerably or financial support was provided from the hardship fund.

The PDA did indeed request a written guarantee during a meeting with Virginia Huffman on August 4, 2004. At that meeting, the PDA told the University that many Postdocs were concerned about having to request additional salary from their respective mentors. Virginia Huffman and Maria Lazzaro assured the PDA this will not be necessary. Professors will get a written memo from HR reminding them of the need to offset the rent subsidy loss. The PDA thought this approach was not enforceable and requested that a written guarantee, stating that ‘no Postdoc will be worse off’, be provided to all Postdocs instead.

More recently, with the initiative of Valerie Horsley, the PDA was able to conduct a survey of how Postdocs will be affected by these changes. This survey is crucial to gauge the mood and sentiment of the Postdocs and develop a consensus for subsequent actions.

PDA’s approach for the future
The coming together of Postdocs and the creation of ‘task forces’ is a remarkable development within this community. Collective action, clear focus, and common sentiment should help us highlight the rent subsidy issue and arrive at a resolution that satisfies the Postdocs. The creation of ‘task forces’/subcommittees to deal with specific issues, and the part-time involvement of committed volunteers is a strategy that should become a model for the future; one that the PDA wants to adopt for all future assignments.

Related Articles:

• Rent Asunder?
• Proposal for a New Housing Lottery Schedule
• SRC News
• Postdoctoral Rent Subsidy Subsided
• Postdoc Rent
• RU Postdocs: Counting the Cost
• Postdoc Rent: Student Perspective
• University’s Promise to Postdocs
• Time to Move
• Postdoc Compensation: Subsidy Stays