Editor’s note: This column is part one of a two-part series addressing the employment issues that post-doctoral reserachers at UMass face.
“The University of Massachusetts Amherst is fortunate to be one of our nation’s leading public research universities,” wrote Chancellor Robert Holub on the Office of the Chancellor’s website. UMass earns over $100 million dollars in revenues via federal and privately funded grants. Whether or not students actively participate in those projects, we should be proud that organizations put so much money and faith into our growing research capabilities.
One storyline, however, is omitted from our proud research reputation. For over a year and a half, postdoctoral researchers (post-docs) have formed the PRO/UAW union to collectively bargain over salaries, job security, health coverage and other work related issues. Of the almost 200 post-docs at UMass, 80-90 percent signed union cards. They are the ones who bring in UMass’s million dollar research grants. Principal investigators (PIs) provide post-docs’ grant applications and recommendations – something they depend on for future employment. Once the funds are approved and received, the money goes to the University, the research, and the researcher.
UMass takes 58 percent of the funds, leaving less than half to be used for buying equipment, materials, space, etc. After that, the salary of the post doc is entirely up to the principal investigator – and there is no minimum standard or accountability established by the University.
According to the Graduate Employment Office, more than half of post-docs receive less hourly wages than graduate student employees and half do not receive health insurance from the University. They can be fired without notice, as no regulations exist as to what is acceptable to fire a post-doc. If PI’s give letter notices of termination, the letters do not state that post-docs are allowed two weeks to issue a formal challenge.
I interviewed two post-docs for this story, and their names and work have been changed to protect their identity. These are their experiences and have neither been confirmed nor denied by the University, though they appear to be supported by PRO/UAW.
Emile, after receiving his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, said he had better healthcare as a graduate student there than he does here as a postdoctoral researcher: “I had regular coverage, as well as dental and eye care. A lot of post-docs here can’t even afford health insurance. Many have to pay up to $10,000 dollars a year for their families’ coverage, and that’s after making $30,000 dollars a year – before taxes. The secretaries of departments have better care than we do.”
Karl, who earned his Ph.D. degree at Cambridge University, explained both his side and the University’s.
“There are two sides,” he said with an optimistic smile, “We have to find a balance. I’m here to do my research, but I have to get paid, I have to be happy or I won’t be as productive.”
“It’s tough,” Emile added. “We understand there are so many constituents, but we are at the bottom of the totem pole. As we become more and more a leader in institutional research, UMass needs to do what it can to show that they can support their post-docs, or the best won’t come here.”
The GEO added in an e-mail that “there are also charges pending before the Massachusetts State Division of Labor because the administration is attempting to exclude some post-docs from union representation after they democratically decided to form their union.” It will take up to year for the Division of Labor to complete their investigation.
“Over the summer,” says Emile, “we met with the UMass bargaining team on a weekly basis. They said they can’t and don’t want to pay post-docs more, [saying] ‘The job market is bad, so if we can hire a post-doc who is willing to work for thirty grand a year, why should we have to pay more?’”
Roy Ribitzky is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
