An essay (not by me) for comments.....
Arthur Sowers
The quoted material below was in a private email to me some time ago. I
edited out the email content and left the essay that was included in the
email. There are a number of interesting opinions, some statistics [Josh
loves statistics], references, and another study is named with less than
glowing estimations for PhDs. Have at it....
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
**************
The enclosed article appears in the Fall 1999 issue of the American
Outlook, a publication of the Hudson Institute, a public-affairs
think tank (www.hudson.org).
======= Quoted material below==============
Piled Higher and Deeper
The alleged shortage of highly educated workers in the U.S. is a myth.
In fact, we're suffering from a chronic surplus of Ph.D.s.
Edwin S. Rubenstein
For more than forty years, those in the know have been warning
Americans of an impending shortage of scientists and engineers. It
started with Sputnik, and gained momentum during the race to the moon.
President Kennedy exhorted America's youth to pursue careers in
engineering. President Johnson supported the National Defense
Education Act to provide fellowships in science and engineering.
Educators bemoaned the decline in the number of college students
studying science. Scientific societies launched major programs to
attract more students to scientific careers. And almost everyone
blamed the alleged shortage for declining American competitiveness in
the global economy.
Their efforts paid off all too well. The alleged shortage changed to a
glut in the 1970s, after the Vietnam War and the drop in federal
support for space science following the moon landings. Employment
prospects for Ph.D.s became so poor that some scientific societies
took out ads in professional journals advising students not to pursue
a Ph.D., and anecdotes about Ph.D.s driving taxicabs became popular.
By the late 1980s, the tide had turned again. The scientists who had
received their degrees in the boom years of the 1950s and 1960s were
approaching retirement age. Analysts expected this to create an
unprecedented demand for new Ph.D.s. In Prospects For Faculty in the
Arts and Sciences (1989), William Bowen and Julie Ann Sosa projected
substantial faculty shortages starting around the year 2000, with
particularly severe shortages in the humanities and social sciences.
Today again we hear that America's colleges and universities are
neither attracting nor producing enough scientists, engineers,
programmers, and information workers to meet the needs of business and
universities. With U.S. unemployment at 4.2 percent and the economy
increasingly relying on computers, many believe that the purported
"skills gap" goes beyond high-tech industries. "We are not just
talking about a shortage of qualified engineers and scientists of our
top software [and] semiconductor firms," said Secretary of Commerce
William M. Daley in Congressional Quarterly. "Every nook of our
economy now depends on technology." My Hudson Institute colleagues
agree. Workforce 2020 co-author and Hudson Senior Fellow Richard Judy
predicts that the labor shortage could bring a 5 percent drop in
economic growth by the year 2020.
Executives in high-tech companies claim that they have to scour the
world for suitable talent. They have lobbied vigorously-and
successfully-to increase the number of skilled workers who can enter
the country using H-1B visas. These controversial visas are supposedly
designed to allow employers to fill emergency vacancies quickly on a
temporary basis. Several executives have told Congress that not being
able to import foreign workers forces them to cut back on programming
projects, delay new products, and trim expansion plans. They claim
that the high-tech worker shortage threatens America's technological
superiority. Denying U.S. industry a crack at foreign-born Ph.D.s is
like "sending the first-round draft choices of the high-tech world to
play on other countries' teams," writes T. J. Rogers of Cypress
Semiconductor Corp. About a third of the new engineering graduates
Microsoft hires each year are foreign students, Microsoft Vice
President Michael Murray told the Senate Immigration Subcommittee in
1998. He stated that more than half of all Ph.D. students in
electrical and computer engineering currently at American universities
are foreign-born.
"If companies cannot find homegrown talent, and if they cannot bring
talent to this country, a large number are likely to move key
operations overseas, sending those and related American jobs with
them," said Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI). Congress responded to the
"crisis" last year by raising the H1-B ceiling from 65,000 to 115,000.
Reality Check
Most H-1B workers, however, are neither creative nor irreplaceable.
"The geniuses are only a tiny fraction of the H1-Bs," says Michael
Teitelbaum, a demographer and former vice-chairman of the National
Commission on Immigration reform. "Most H1-Bs are programmers being
brought in several hundred at a time. They are code writers [and] they
are doing the kind of things any well-educated American with the
proper training can do." Industry claims of a "desperate software
labor shortage" are a myth, according to UC-Davis computer-science
professor Norman Matloff. Microsoft, for example, hires only about 2
percent of its applicants for software writing. This rate is typical
of the industry as a whole: the figure at Deltanet is 4 percent, at
Broderbund 1 percent, and at Ecbridges 2 percent.
Access to cheap labor is the hidden agenda behind the skills-shortage
campaign, Matloff charges in an on-line report on the controversy.
Reports by high-tech trade associations seem to support the notion of
a phony crisis. A study by the Information Technology Association of
America (ITAA) found that high-tech companies subtly discriminate
against older men and women with families because they are perceived
as "less available for the overtime and weekend work." A Silicon
Valley manager told Congressional Quarterly, "The top management of
our company has directed us to focus our hiring on new or recent
graduates only. These are people who have no family and can work long
hours. Yes, salary is a major factor. . . .You work the young ones for
five years and then replace them." (See Kathy Koch, "High Tech Labor
Shortage," Congressional Quarterly, April 1998.)
"I call it the vampire industry," said a congressional staffer who
worked on the H1-B issue. "Every day they need fresh blood." Not
surprisingly, industry representatives disagree. "It's not an
age-discrimination thing. It's a skills thing. We need people right
away with the latest skills," says Harris N. Miller, president of the
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA.) But if it were a
"skills thing," wages would be rising disproportionately in the
computer industry and other high-tech fields. They aren't. In fact,
the premium paid for Ph.Ds in the computer industry is lower than in
other science specialties (see fig. 1) One reason is the prevalence of
foreign-born computer professionals, who work for salaries 15-20
percent lower than those received by natives of the same age and
experience. (See Norman Matloff, "A Critical Analysis of Arguments
Supporting High Levels of Immigration," March 14, 1999,
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/pub/immigration.)
Insert fig. 1 here
Thus most if not all of the high-tech industry's labor problems are
self-inflicted, created by short-sighted human-resource practices,
especially a stubborn refusal to retain and train experienced workers.
When recruiters "can't find workers," it is usually because they're
looking for them in the wrong places. "You could train a person who is
literate in computer programming but doesn't know a particular
language and he can become proficient in about a month," Teitelbaum
says. "But when you say you'll only take people with two years'
experience in Java, when Java is such a new language, you're not going
to find them." Teitelbaum says there's a "gold mine" of unemployed,
technically oriented Ph.D.s in related fields-such as mathematics and
physics-who could become systems analysts with minimal training. John
Rohde, president of FirsTel Co., a Silicon Valley software firm, says
that he would hire any Ph.D. who walked into his office as long as he
had some computer experience. "Why should I train a new employee?" he
said to Congressional Quarterly.
Numbers, Please
Labor statistics belie the allegations of a high-tech labor shortage.
As figure 2 illustrates, the current production of science and
engineering (S&E) Ph.D.s is at an all-time high-up to 26,515 in 1995
from 18,799 in 1975. Foreign students account for approximately half
the increase. In 1990, more than 50 percent of U.S. engineering Ph.D.s
were awarded to foreign students, and the figures are almost as high
in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science. More than
eight out of every ten foreign graduate students in the U.S. is in an
S&E program, with more than half these students coming from just four
countries: Taiwan, China, Korea, and India. As foreign enrollment has
skyrocketed, native U.S. enrollment has stayed flat, holding at around
13,000 annually over the past twenty-five years.
Insert fig. 2 here
Earning a Ph.D., of course, entails an enormous investment of time and
effort. The median time spent earning earn a science or engineering
doctorate is 6.9 years. Students incur opportunity costs in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a substantial fraction dip into
savings or go into debt to cover tuition and living expenses. In 1995,
85 percent of U.S. students reported some reliance on their families
and personal savings.
This educational investment is a risky proposition. Unemployment among
newly minted math Ph.D.s. has been in double digits for much of the
past three decades, and has only recently fallen below the national
average (see fig. 3). Surveys of science and technology Ph.D.s reveal
both outright unemployment and rampant involuntary temporary
employment (see chart). The latter-the percentage of new Ph.D.s who
can't find a suitable permanent post- is particularly disheartening,
ranging from 6.1 percent in computer science to 34.5 percent in
physics and earth science. Many of these people are employed outside
science and engineering altogether. That is not always a bad thing,
but it is surely not what their expensive educations were designed
for, and it certainly belies the notion of a shortage of highly
educated workers.
Insert fig. 3 here
Degree of Unhappiness: Ph.D.s Without Real Jobs
Involuntary Temporary Average Time
Unemployment Employment to Find a Job
(percent) (percent) (months)
Mathematics 3.8 27.1 5
Engineering 2.7 10.6 4
Biochemistry 4.0 13.4 3
Computer Science 2.4 6.1 3
Physics 1.8 34.5 4
Chemistry 4.6 33.1 6
Earth and Space Science 3.9 34.5 5
Source: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. (Survey
reflects
employment conditions of 1996-1997 Ph.D.s as of mid-October 1997.)
Seasoned professionals are faring no better. Matloff reports that 17
percent of computer programmers over the age of fifty are unemployed.
And by that age, most have already left the field. Data from the
National Survey of College Graduates show that only 19 percent of
those with a computer science degree are still in the field twenty
years after graduation, compared with 52 percent in civil engineering.
Matloff notes that Sun Microsystems, a leading advocate for raising
the H1-B quota, classifies as "senior" anyone with six years of
experience-a 28-year old, for example. Employers claim that they shun
such people because their skills are outdated, but, as noted earlier,
any competent programmer can master new software in a month or so. The
real turnoff is that older workers are more expensive. That creates a
"revolving door" through which computer professionals thirty-five and
older cannot fit.
Ph.D. Machine
Economists, of course, will tell you that a permanent glut of Ph.D.s
is impossible. If markets are operating properly, the price of
anything in oversupply will fall. Hence a Ph.D. glut should reduce
salaries paid to Ph.D.s, thereby reducing the number of entering grad
students and thus increasing the relative demand for their services.
Eventually the glut will be soaked up.
Unfortunately, the Ph.D. market is far from perfect, because
universities influence both supply and demand. An August 1995 Rand
Corporation study of the academic labor market found that the number
of doctoral students admitted to American colleges and universities
depends less on the private labor market than on the needs of graduate
departments to provide teaching assistants for undergraduate courses.
(See William F. Massy and Charles A. Goldman, "The Production and
Utilization of Science and Engineering Doctorates in the United
States," RAND Institute for Education and Training and the Alfred P.
Sloan Corporation.) The graduates' future employment prospects are not
a consideration. Academic departments admit as many grad students as
needed for their own internal teaching and research needs, expanding
the supply by accepting increasing numbers of foreign students into
their graduate programs and subsidizing their tuition with federal R&D
grants and state-subsidized tuition.
Meanwhile, universities are reducing the number of career, "tenure
track" positions, the report says. The academic labor pool has been
wracked by state and federal budget cuts, curtailed defense spending,
and legislative bans on mandatory retirement for professors. As few as
38-40 percent of faculty appointments made in recent years are
traditional full-time tenured positions. Between 1987 and 1992, the
number of part-time faculty grew by 47.7 percent; part-time faculty
now comprise approximately 45 percent of all teaching staff.
The use of "gypsy scholars" saves the schools money but creates a
wasteful overproduction of Ph.D.s and underconsumption of scholarship.
This keeps Ph.D.s' salaries low and makes graduate education less
attractive, especially for U.S. natives. The Rand study suggests that
too many doctorates are being produced in engineering, math, and some
sciences. Indeed, the Rand model of the Ph.D. market indicates that
approximately 22 percent of new science and engineering Ph.D.s will
fail to find suitable employment (will involuntarily work outside
their fields).
Liars Figure
To some extent, the high-tech labor-shortage scare is the work of
special-interest groups whose well-being depends on maintaining the
perception of such a shortage. The National Science Foundation is a
major offender. Peter House, head of NSF's Policy and Research
Analysis Division in the 1980s, performed NSF's first shortage study,
projecting a shortfall of 600,000 scientists by the year 2000. House's
methodology was criticized both inside and outside the NSF, and the
agency's Office of Legislative and Public Affairs refused to approve
the study for formal presentation as an NSF document. Much of the
criticism focused on the highly dubious notion of using a peak period
of past supply as a measure of future demand.
NSF's prediction, say many young scientists, was self-serving,
intended mainly to nudge Congress into providing more funding for the
agency. Also, Matloff notes that the NSF wants to preserve the sense
of science as a "calling" and believes that low salaries ensure that
only truly dedicated individuals will enter the field. "The National
Science Foundation" Matloff writes, "actually planned this to happen,
planned to bring in foreign students to hold down salaries. Moreover,
the NSF realized that this would discourage all but the most
idealistic American students from pursuing doctoral work, an irony in
view of the much lamented reluctance of American students to pursue
advanced degrees in science and engineering."
Some young scientists are so embittered by the job market that they
believe the time and effort invested in pursuit of their degree was
pointless. "The only thing clear is that there are fewer jobs for
physicists because there is less economic need for physicists," Murray
Arnow of Skokie, Illinois, wrote in a letter to Physics Today. "The
current commitment of the American Physical Society to promote science
education is almost folly given the declining demand for physicists."
High-tech employers agree. Virtually all will tell you that their
ideal workers have just a BS or MS degree. There are only a small
number of industry jobs requiring a Ph.D., and many commercial
laboratories that once employed full-time scientists now prefer
postdoctoral students working as temporary employees. "What surprises
me is that even those young people with outstanding research records
are having difficulty finding permanent employment," writes Kevin
Aylesworth, a physics postdoc, in Physics Today.
Somehow Japan manages to generate as many patents as we do while
having only a miniscule number of S&E Ph.D.s. And although eager to
become a major player in the high-tech arena, Taiwan is actually
reducing its graduate programs. Yet the U.S. continues in the opposite
direction. The difference is that Japan and Taiwan are making their
graduate-education decisions based on national interest, whereas the
U.S. policy is quite evidently set by special interest groups in
industry and academia.
The continuing oversupply of Ph.D.s is no accident. It is the result
of deliberate policy choices made by the federal government and the
science establishment. It has been a boon to many employers. Science
and engineering firms and higher-education institutions have saved on
wages, benefits, and commitments. But it is bad public policy.
Edwin S. Rubenstein is an economist and Director of Research for the
Hudson Institute.
clarosa
that the long term emploment prospects
in the science research for Ph.Ds. in Biology, Bio-Med, Biochemistry, Plant
and Agricultural Sciences and other fields are as bad or worse due to the
policies mentioned in the essay.
This will not happen, but a benevolent dictator would 1) end the practice of
funding graduate TAs, RAs, Research associates, and post-doctoral positions
funded off research grants. The graduate schools should take only those
willing to pay the tuition, just like the medical and law professional
schools.
2) End or severly restrict non-US citizens who cannot pay on visiting student
and scholor status.
The above type of policy changes would bring market forces back into the
picture, and reduce the gross and unconsciensable over supply of surplus
Ph.D.
It is time to end the academic pyramid scheme.
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
<snip>
: Today again we hear that America's colleges and universities are
: neither attracting nor producing enough scientists, engineers,
: programmers, and information workers to meet the needs of business and
: universities. With U.S. unemployment at 4.2 percent and the economy
: increasingly relying on computers, many believe that the purported
: "skills gap" goes beyond high-tech industries. "We are not just
: talking about a shortage of qualified engineers and scientists of our
: top software [and] semiconductor firms," said Secretary of Commerce
: William M. Daley in Congressional Quarterly. "Every nook of our
: economy now depends on technology." My Hudson Institute colleagues
: agree. Workforce 2020 co-author and Hudson Senior Fellow Richard Judy
: predicts that the labor shortage could bring a 5 percent drop in
: economic growth by the year 2020.
I accumulated about 3 years in the dole queue while I was told that there
was a "shortage" of engineers in Canada. I was an experienced
professional engineer with an M. Sc. and I could have papered my walls
with the rejection letters that I received.
Not one of them criticized my qualifications. Almost every one assured me
that they were "impressive" and that my application would be "kept on
file" for the next few months (which makes me wonder how often the trash
was emptied...). One company stood out, though, in that it was honest
enough to admit that I was likely over-qualified and I would likely be
bored there.
<snip>
: Access to cheap labor is the hidden agenda behind the skills-shortage
: campaign, Matloff charges in an on-line report on the controversy.
: Reports by high-tech trade associations seem to support the notion of
: a phony crisis. A study by the Information Technology Association of
: America (ITAA) found that high-tech companies subtly discriminate
: against older men and women with families because they are perceived
: as "less available for the overtime and weekend work." A Silicon
: Valley manager told Congressional Quarterly, "The top management of
: our company has directed us to focus our hiring on new or recent
: graduates only. These are people who have no family and can work long
: hours. Yes, salary is a major factor. . . .You work the young ones for
: five years and then replace them." (See Kathy Koch, "High Tech Labor
: Shortage," Congressional Quarterly, April 1998.)
Right on the money.
I've heard stories about some companies that were determined to import
their workers. The requirements for the positions in question were set in
such a way that only someone from outside the country could qualify.
Often the pay was near minimum wage.
During my last undergraduate year, I was interviewed for a position with a
company at one of their facilities, as were several of my classmates, many
of whom received job offers. Of those that were hired that I personally
knew, most were either married or engaged. Coincidence, I suppose....
--
*****************************************
* Dr. Bernhard Michael Jatzeck, P. Eng. *
* *
* jat...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
*****************************************
Arthur Sowers
On 7 Jul 2001 jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Arthur Sowers (arth...@magpage.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : Today again we hear that America's colleges and universities are
> : neither attracting nor producing enough scientists, engineers,
> : programmers, and information workers to meet the needs of business and
> : universities. With U.S. unemployment at 4.2 percent and the economy
> : increasingly relying on computers, many believe that the purported
> : "skills gap" goes beyond high-tech industries. "We are not just
> : talking about a shortage of qualified engineers and scientists of our
> : top software [and] semiconductor firms," said Secretary of Commerce
> : William M. Daley in Congressional Quarterly. "Every nook of our
> : economy now depends on technology." My Hudson Institute colleagues
> : agree. Workforce 2020 co-author and Hudson Senior Fellow Richard Judy
> : predicts that the labor shortage could bring a 5 percent drop in
> : economic growth by the year 2020.
>
> I accumulated about 3 years in the dole queue while I was told that there
> was a "shortage" of engineers in Canada. I was an experienced
> professional engineer with an M. Sc. and I could have papered my walls
> with the rejection letters that I received.
First, on my rejection letters.... Between '92-'95 I was looking again for
something that would/could lead to a permanent position (compared to my
nontenure track position at UMAB) and sent out over 100 CVs, got one
interview (one other interview by a different search) and no offers. In
all cases there were hundreds of applicants (some of the rejection letters
said so). If there were maybe half a dozen applicants per job, then maybe
you could say labor supply was tight.
Second, all of the lobbying entities present whatever they want for their
constituencies in the most shrill message possible. Shout don't talk,
exagerate don't tell the truth, and forget anyone else's problems or that
any issue needs to be considered in the context of all others. Pure
propaganda & lies.
> Not one of them criticized my qualifications. Almost every one assured me
> that they were "impressive" and that my application would be "kept on
> file" for the next few months (which makes me wonder how often the trash
> was emptied...).
This is always the gratuitous nothingness platitudes that they think is
necessary to help fill up the rest of the blank paper on which the letter
is written.
One company stood out, though, in that it was honest
> enough to admit that I was likely over-qualified and I would likely be
> bored there.
Maybe you should have contacted them back and say otherwise. Really!
> <snip>
>
> : Access to cheap labor is the hidden agenda behind the skills-shortage
> : campaign, Matloff charges in an on-line report on the controversy.
> : Reports by high-tech trade associations seem to support the notion of
> : a phony crisis. A study by the Information Technology Association of
> : America (ITAA) found that high-tech companies subtly discriminate
> : against older men and women with families because they are perceived
> : as "less available for the overtime and weekend work." A Silicon
> : Valley manager told Congressional Quarterly, "The top management of
> : our company has directed us to focus our hiring on new or recent
> : graduates only. These are people who have no family and can work long
> : hours. Yes, salary is a major factor. . . .You work the young ones for
> : five years and then replace them." (See Kathy Koch, "High Tech Labor
> : Shortage," Congressional Quarterly, April 1998.)
>
> Right on the money.
Same deal with adjunct faculty.
> I've heard stories about some companies that were determined to import
> their workers. The requirements for the positions in question were set in
> such a way that only someone from outside the country could qualify.
> Often the pay was near minimum wage.
>
> During my last undergraduate year, I was interviewed for a position with a
> company at one of their facilities, as were several of my classmates, many
> of whom received job offers. Of those that were hired that I personally
> knew, most were either married or engaged. Coincidence, I suppose....
You'd have to follow a population and figure it out. Who knows what they
said on the interview or what the interviewer thought. Etc.
Art
Arthur Sowers
My "dream" solution would be to have the sci career modeled after the
medical career. The "weeding out" is done during application to graduate
school and there is a national projection of faculty needs and _real_
industry needs (not this crap where PhDs end up in non-PhD requiring jobs)
plus a factor for those who choose to not continue in science voluntarily.
I'd also have industry decide it needs a PhD and then take one of its
present employees and send him or her back to school (at the company's
expense).
Regarding Chris's solution... yes its drastic. But all the university
lobbying entities (AAU, AAMC, etc., there's about a dozen of them) will
lobby against your solution.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
<snip>
: > I accumulated about 3 years in the dole queue while I was told that there
: > was a "shortage" of engineers in Canada. I was an experienced
: > professional engineer with an M. Sc. and I could have papered my walls
: > with the rejection letters that I received.
: First, on my rejection letters.... Between '92-'95 I was looking again for
: something that would/could lead to a permanent position (compared to my
: nontenure track position at UMAB) and sent out over 100 CVs, got one
: interview (one other interview by a different search) and no offers. In
: all cases there were hundreds of applicants (some of the rejection letters
: said so). If there were maybe half a dozen applicants per job, then maybe
: you could say labor supply was tight.
: Second, all of the lobbying entities present whatever they want for their
: constituencies in the most shrill message possible. Shout don't talk,
: exagerate don't tell the truth, and forget anyone else's problems or that
: any issue needs to be considered in the context of all others. Pure
: propaganda & lies.
At one time during my unemployment I decided to write some politicians and
get their advice on what to do. One response reminded me to try what
used to be called Canada Manpower (as if I hadn't already thought of it).
Another "encouraged" me that there was always hope (that's nice, but then
what?)
None of them bothered to follow up, their token "caring" having been
dispensed.
: > Not one of them criticized my qualifications. Almost every one assured me
: > that they were "impressive" and that my application would be "kept on
: > file" for the next few months (which makes me wonder how often the trash
: > was emptied...).
: This is always the gratuitous nothingness platitudes that they think is
: necessary to help fill up the rest of the blank paper on which the letter
: is written.
I've heard that the "skill" of writing that bilge is actually *taught* in
some business courses.
<snip>
: > I've heard stories about some companies that were determined to import
: > their workers. The requirements for the positions in question were set in
: > such a way that only someone from outside the country could qualify.
: > Often the pay was near minimum wage.
: >
: > During my last undergraduate year, I was interviewed for a position with a
: > company at one of their facilities, as were several of my classmates, many
: > of whom received job offers. Of those that were hired that I personally
: > knew, most were either married or engaged. Coincidence, I suppose....
: You'd have to follow a population and figure it out. Who knows what they
: said on the interview or what the interviewer thought. Etc.
It's been my experience that such companies are afraid that married
workers aren't as likely to jump ship. Their family obligations will
prevent them from taking off whenever they want.
Arthur Sowers
On 8 Jul 2001 jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Arthur Sowers (arth...@magpage.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : > I accumulated about 3 years in the dole queue while I was told that there
> : > was a "shortage" of engineers in Canada. I was an experienced
> : > professional engineer with an M. Sc. and I could have papered my walls
> : > with the rejection letters that I received.
>
> : First, on my rejection letters.... Between '92-'95 I was looking again for
> : something that would/could lead to a permanent position (compared to my
> : nontenure track position at UMAB) and sent out over 100 CVs, got one
> : interview (one other interview by a different search) and no offers. In
> : all cases there were hundreds of applicants (some of the rejection letters
> : said so). If there were maybe half a dozen applicants per job, then maybe
> : you could say labor supply was tight.
>
> : Second, all of the lobbying entities present whatever they want for their
> : constituencies in the most shrill message possible. Shout don't talk,
> : exagerate don't tell the truth, and forget anyone else's problems or that
> : any issue needs to be considered in the context of all others. Pure
> : propaganda & lies.
>
> At one time during my unemployment I decided to write some politicians and
> get their advice on what to do. One response reminded me to try what
> used to be called Canada Manpower (as if I hadn't already thought of it).
> Another "encouraged" me that there was always hope (that's nice, but then
> what?)
We had a guy here on src up till maybe 5 years ago... a recruiter, Dave
Jensen, who ran his own Search Masters International. I saw maybe last
year where he "became" part of Kelly Scientific (merged was his word). He
was full of: i) have a positive attitude, and ii) network like hell, and
those two things would solve all problems. I argued back that those two
things were NOT all that is needed and that there were people out there
trying these things and not going anywhere. When I was young, "networking"
worked great. I was looking for lab tech jobs, which were everywhere on
campuses, and just right for an undergraduate (profs & chairs could always
find some money to pay some dirt wages and they got some help and you got
some money & experience). Now, zoom up about ten years and you're looking
for something a lot more serious. Now, zoom up another ten years and
you're in some age discrimination. Zoom up another ten years and at age 50
or more, they are seeing "grandfather" in the CV when they want to see a
newly graduated PhD or so.
> None of them bothered to follow up, their token "caring" having been
> dispensed.
Yeah.... but, seriously, did you expect any of them to "materialize" a job
for you? You (and I) can come around here, src, and "jaw" about these
problems and at least get a little compassion from each other. Or, if you
are in something hot some recruiters should be calling you up. I'm
definitely not in anything hot. Guys like Tom Clancy (you know, "hunt for
red october") publishers, etc., stumble & trip over each other to get.
> : > Not one of them criticized my qualifications. Almost every one assured me
> : > that they were "impressive" and that my application would be "kept on
> : > file" for the next few months (which makes me wonder how often the trash
> : > was emptied...).
>
> : This is always the gratuitous nothingness platitudes that they think is
> : necessary to help fill up the rest of the blank paper on which the letter
> : is written.
>
> I've heard that the "skill" of writing that bilge is actually *taught* in
> some business courses.
Oh, yes. How to take a whole page to say no. I barf all over them. I like
the ones that talk all about the whole world without saying either yes or
no, but in the end, you look over the letter and can't find _yes_, so you
have to conclude it must be _no_.
> <snip>
>
> : > I've heard stories about some companies that were determined to import
> : > their workers. The requirements for the positions in question were set in
> : > such a way that only someone from outside the country could qualify.
> : > Often the pay was near minimum wage.
> : >
> : > During my last undergraduate year, I was interviewed for a position with a
> : > company at one of their facilities, as were several of my classmates, many
> : > of whom received job offers. Of those that were hired that I personally
> : > knew, most were either married or engaged. Coincidence, I suppose....
>
> : You'd have to follow a population and figure it out. Who knows what they
> : said on the interview or what the interviewer thought. Etc.
>
> It's been my experience that such companies are afraid that married
> workers aren't as likely to jump ship. Their family obligations will
> prevent them from taking off whenever they want.
They can rationalize either way. With the H1Bs, they want single young
guys because they can get them to work 60-70 hours/week and they are not
old enough yet to realize that they might like to have a life. The H1B
makes them indentured (actually there are other visa types, like the ones
around me which work in the chicken processing plants) so they don't jump
ship. If they hire a local (i.e. native or "domestic" [=been around long
enough to have a green card or have become a citizen), then, yes, having a
marriage and maybe kid means that they guy is sending down roots, and thus
more mature and stable.
Art
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
: > At one time during my unemployment I decided to write some politicians and
: > get their advice on what to do. One response reminded me to try what
: > used to be called Canada Manpower (as if I hadn't already thought of it).
: > Another "encouraged" me that there was always hope (that's nice, but then
: > what?)
: We had a guy here on src up till maybe 5 years ago... a recruiter, Dave
: Jensen, who ran his own Search Masters International. I saw maybe last
: year where he "became" part of Kelly Scientific (merged was his word). He
: was full of: i) have a positive attitude, and ii) network like hell, and
: those two things would solve all problems. I argued back that those two
: things were NOT all that is needed and that there were people out there
: trying these things and not going anywhere. When I was young, "networking"
: worked great. I was looking for lab tech jobs, which were everywhere on
: campuses, and just right for an undergraduate (profs & chairs could always
: find some money to pay some dirt wages and they got some help and you got
: some money & experience). Now, zoom up about ten years and you're looking
: for something a lot more serious. Now, zoom up another ten years and
: you're in some age discrimination. Zoom up another ten years and at age 50
: or more, they are seeing "grandfather" in the CV when they want to see a
: newly graduated PhD or so.
Oh, I tried all of that, only to find that I'd be on the dole for several
months at a time with few interviews and no offers.
: > None of them bothered to follow up, their token "caring" having been
: > dispensed.
: Yeah.... but, seriously, did you expect any of them to "materialize" a job
: for you? You (and I) can come around here, src, and "jaw" about these
: problems and at least get a little compassion from each other. Or, if you
: are in something hot some recruiters should be calling you up. I'm
: definitely not in anything hot. Guys like Tom Clancy (you know, "hunt for
: red october") publishers, etc., stumble & trip over each other to get.
I was rather young and foolish when I wrote those letters and actually
believed that there were some politicians who cared. After all, weren't
they supposed to serve the public that they represented? Needless to say,
my views have changed considerably since then.
<snip>
: > I've heard that the "skill" of writing that bilge is actually *taught* in
: > some business courses.
: Oh, yes. How to take a whole page to say no. I barf all over them. I like
: the ones that talk all about the whole world without saying either yes or
: no, but in the end, you look over the letter and can't find _yes_, so you
: have to conclude it must be _no_.
I believe it was Samuel Goldwyn who said that the most important thing in
his business was sincerity and when one could fake that, one had it made.
(He, of course, also used the term "a definite maybe".)
<snip>
: They can rationalize either way. With the H1Bs, they want single young
: guys because they can get them to work 60-70 hours/week and they are not
: old enough yet to realize that they might like to have a life. The H1B
: makes them indentured (actually there are other visa types, like the ones
: around me which work in the chicken processing plants) so they don't jump
: ship. If they hire a local (i.e. native or "domestic" [=been around long
: enough to have a green card or have become a citizen), then, yes, having a
: marriage and maybe kid means that they guy is sending down roots, and thus
: more mature and stable.
I remember that shortly after I started with one company a long time ago,
some bigwig from another location flew to where I was working. I picked
him up shortly after his plane landed and was driving back when he started
a conversation.
It consisted, for the most part of small talk, but then he asked me if I
was married. When I answered no, he then asked me if I had a girlfriend.
At the time, I thought it was a rather impertinent and pointless question,
but I answered no to that as well and didn't think much more about it.
Shortly afterwards, my employer began making what I considered to be
unreasonable demands on my spare time. A coincidence? Looking back over
the years, I'm not so sure.
Rich Lemert
> My "dream" solution would be to have the sci career modeled after the
> medical career. The "weeding out" is done during application to graduate
> school and there is a national projection of faculty needs and _real_
> industry needs (not this crap where PhDs end up in non-PhD requiring jobs)
> plus a factor for those who choose to not continue in science voluntarily.
Who would be preparing this projection? The NSF? The NIH? The Bureau of
Labor? The various professional societies?
Related questions: 1) If you don't believe their numbers for current employment,
why are you going to trust their projections? 2) How are you going to deal with
the short term flux in employment such as what we're seeing now? (When it
takes 5-6 years to produce a PhD, and the economy can tank in 6 months, you're
going to have imbalances. How do you propose to accomodate them.)
My current position does not require a PhD, and yet my salary reflects a
significant
increment over others because of my degree. As long as the degree gets me a
premium
salary, I should care whether the job actually demands the degree?
>
>
> I'd also have industry decide it needs a PhD and then take one of its
> present employees and send him or her back to school (at the company's
> expense).
And what's the company to do in the meantime while it's waiting the 5-6 yearsit
will need to for that person to finish his/her studies?
Yes, these are 'negative' questions. However, if you ever want your suggestions
to have even a chance of becoming the norm, they are questions you are going to
have to have an answer for.
Rich Lemert
Arthur Sowers
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rich Lemert wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
>
> > My "dream" solution would be to have the sci career modeled after the
> > medical career. The "weeding out" is done during application to graduate
> > school and there is a national projection of faculty needs and _real_
> > industry needs (not this crap where PhDs end up in non-PhD requiring jobs)
> > plus a factor for those who choose to not continue in science voluntarily.
>
> Who would be preparing this projection? The NSF? The NIH? The Bureau of
> Labor? The various professional societies?
Well, for one, the American Scientist Association, which does not exist
(except that there really was an ASA, made up by one anti-H1B guy, one day
who wasn't interested in anything but H1B issues, and I don't know where
it is today anyway), which would look after PhDs about the same as the AMA
looks after the MDs. But, this is highly speculative.
> Related questions: 1) If you don't believe their numbers for current employment,
>
> why are you going to trust their projections? 2) How are you going to deal with
> the short term flux in employment such as what we're seeing now? (When it
> takes 5-6 years to produce a PhD, and the economy can tank in 6 months, you're
> going to have imbalances. How do you propose to accomodate them.)
Answering this is beyond the scope of this post.
> My current position does not require a PhD, and yet my salary reflects a
> significant
> increment over others because of my degree. As long as the degree gets me a
> premium
> salary, I should care whether the job actually demands the degree?
Good point, but that opinion is just one kind of philosophical
"adjustment" in one's judgement about one's own state of professional
employment. Certainly you are free to feel that way. But, there are lots
of people who wanted to get a PhD so they could get a job that requires
that degree; I think, for examplen, Brian would have preferred to get
tenure here recently. His career might now be in trouble and none of us
will know otherwise till he either gets some luck in finding a new
position (Good luck, Brian, if you're reading this).
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing I'm doing now that needs a PhD
either. I deal with it. I also try to warn others ... why get a degree if,
10-15 years down the road, it becomes useless.
But, if you don't care, then why did you get a PhD to begin with?
> >
> >
> > I'd also have industry decide it needs a PhD and then take one of its
> > present employees and send him or her back to school (at the company's
> > expense).
>
> And what's the company to do in the meantime while it's waiting the 5-6 yearsit
> will need to for that person to finish his/her studies?
I have no sympathy for entities that, most of the time, treat their human
being employees like shit and lay they off so that resources can be
conserved to pay the executives who otherwise parasitize their underlings.
I will acknowledge that there are companies that try hard to treat their
employees well. The company mindsets described in many books I could cite
were more like this a number of decades ago compared to today.
> Yes, these are 'negative' questions. However, if you ever want your
> suggestions
> to have even a chance of becoming the norm, they are questions you are
> going to
> have to have an answer for.
I started out my post with the word _dream_ in quotes and that should have
tipped you off that I had faint hope for it to become reality.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> Rich Lemert
>
>
>
Arthur Sowers
On 8 Jul 2001 jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Arthur Sowers (arth...@magpage.com) wrote:
>
> : > At one time during my unemployment I decided to write some politicians and
> : > get their advice on what to do. One response reminded me to try what
> : > used to be called Canada Manpower (as if I hadn't already thought of it).
> : > Another "encouraged" me that there was always hope (that's nice, but then
> : > what?)
>
> : We had a guy here on src up till maybe 5 years ago... a recruiter, Dave
> : Jensen, who ran his own Search Masters International. I saw maybe last
> : year where he "became" part of Kelly Scientific (merged was his word). He
> : was full of: i) have a positive attitude, and ii) network like hell, and
> : those two things would solve all problems. I argued back that those two
> : things were NOT all that is needed and that there were people out there
> : trying these things and not going anywhere. When I was young, "networking"
> : worked great. I was looking for lab tech jobs, which were everywhere on
> : campuses, and just right for an undergraduate (profs & chairs could always
> : find some money to pay some dirt wages and they got some help and you got
> : some money & experience). Now, zoom up about ten years and you're looking
> : for something a lot more serious. Now, zoom up another ten years and
> : you're in some age discrimination. Zoom up another ten years and at age 50
> : or more, they are seeing "grandfather" in the CV when they want to see a
> : newly graduated PhD or so.
>
> Oh, I tried all of that, only to find that I'd be on the dole for several
> months at a time with few interviews and no offers.
Ok, so what did you do about "few interviews and no offers"?
> : > None of them bothered to follow up, their token "caring" having been
> : > dispensed.
>
> : Yeah.... but, seriously, did you expect any of them to "materialize" a job
> : for you? You (and I) can come around here, src, and "jaw" about these
> : problems and at least get a little compassion from each other. Or, if you
> : are in something hot some recruiters should be calling you up. I'm
> : definitely not in anything hot. Guys like Tom Clancy (you know, "hunt for
> : red october") publishers, etc., stumble & trip over each other to get.
>
> I was rather young and foolish when I wrote those letters and actually
> believed that there were some politicians who cared.
One of the tenets of life is that politicians usually, like most people,
"look out for #1" most of the time. Very occassionally a few will take a
special interest in you or someone. I recall a few days ago some
congressman here in the US who was real big on that "patient's bill of
rights" (within our capitalist-imperialist health care system) and the
reason was that somewhere in his own life (I forgot the exact details), he
had some bad personal experience with the crap that HMOs pull off on
people. Very often I find that people will care about a specific problem
only when they've had an unpleasant encounter with it themselves. Beyond
that, its SOL.
After all, weren't
> they supposed to serve the public that they represented?
Ahahahahaahahaha..... excuse me. At my age, I prefer the cynical rather
than the idealistic judgement of such notions.
Needless to say,
> my views have changed considerably since then.
We all get smart too late and old too soon.
> <snip>
>
> : > I've heard that the "skill" of writing that bilge is actually *taught* in
> : > some business courses.
>
> : Oh, yes. How to take a whole page to say no. I barf all over them. I like
> : the ones that talk all about the whole world without saying either yes or
> : no, but in the end, you look over the letter and can't find _yes_, so you
> : have to conclude it must be _no_.
>
> I believe it was Samuel Goldwyn who said that the most important thing in
> his business was sincerity and when one could fake that, one had it made.
> (He, of course, also used the term "a definite maybe".)
Sure sounds like a "hedge" to me.
> <snip>
>
> : They can rationalize either way. With the H1Bs, they want single young
> : guys because they can get them to work 60-70 hours/week and they are not
> : old enough yet to realize that they might like to have a life. The H1B
> : makes them indentured (actually there are other visa types, like the ones
> : around me which work in the chicken processing plants) so they don't jump
> : ship. If they hire a local (i.e. native or "domestic" [=been around long
> : enough to have a green card or have become a citizen), then, yes, having a
> : marriage and maybe kid means that they guy is sending down roots, and thus
> : more mature and stable.
>
> I remember that shortly after I started with one company a long time ago,
> some bigwig from another location flew to where I was working. I picked
> him up shortly after his plane landed and was driving back when he started
> a conversation.
Oh, goody, I can tell this is going to be good!!!!
> It consisted, for the most part of small talk, but then he asked me if I
> was married. When I answered no, he then asked me if I had a girlfriend.
> At the time, I thought it was a rather impertinent and pointless question,
> but I answered no to that as well and didn't think much more about it.
When I was younger I would have answered the guy, but some time later I
began to get "wise" to a shift to personal questions and I'd either ask
something back, like, "Oh, why are you interested?" and see what the guy
says. Or, another tact would be "Ah... nice of you to ask, but what if I
said 'yes' and what if I said 'no'?" ... and see what the guy says. My
little alarm bells start going off when I run into strangers who start a
conversation on small talk and then shift to personal questions. I'll tell
you a dangerous thing, just as a tangent but relevant to what I'm getting
at. Back 30 years ago when I was in my 20s and in California a guy said
something to me that scared me at the time and I didn't ask him to expand
on the issue but somewhere in the conversation was the topic of marital
state and he said something like "you know, everyone around here
considers that if somebody is 25 and unmarried, then they have to be
gay". At the time, he and I and four other guys were all in the Army
working at LRL and none of us were married (and only one had a
girlfriend). And, I had this thought "Now, why did this guy say what
he said?" More frightening was "And, is that what a lot of people really
think?" Then, that question branched out into several more, such as,
"Why did this guy even bring this up?" I could fill in some more blanks as
part of the mystery, but that would also go beyond the scope of this
banter. Suffice it to say that we all worked in a secure area, too, that
required high level security clearances. It was a period in my life that
held many "war stories", too. But, nothing like medical school and
biomedical environments.
> Shortly afterwards, my employer began making what I considered to be
> unreasonable demands on my spare time. A coincidence? Looking back over
> the years, I'm not so sure.
Reminds me of a few times in my life when I noticed that such coincidences
actually coincided with, or were congruent with, what third and fourth
parties "gossipped" to me in the hallway about, and I could put 2+2
together. Now, if it happened to me that my boss started making
unreasonable demands on me, I'd be seriously thinking about doing two
things: i) have a little friendly chat with him ("say, starting about X
months ago you started Y extra projects and this is eating into my spare
time and I'd like to know why"), and ii) start mixing with other employees
and see if anyone else is getting their load piled up, too. Sometimes
overlings are more sypathetic to married guys because they know they have
more responsibilities (wife & kids, etc), but also sometimes they might be
trying to get you to get mad and quit.
So, sometimes you have to try to figure out what is going on,
psychologically, in your work environment. Part of my advice: i) have your
long range radar turned on all the time ("No More Pearl Harbors" bumper
sticker on your car?), and ii) look over your shoulder from time to
time... backstabs come from the rear. Anyone standing behind you
recently that you don't know why they are there?
Read Machiavelli's books.
Art
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
<snip>
: > Oh, I tried all of that, only to find that I'd be on the dole for several
: > months at a time with few interviews and no offers.
: Ok, so what did you do about "few interviews and no offers"?
I kept cranking out my letters of application. This was during the middle
to late 1980s. The situation changed since then as have both my
priorities and my tactics. I can be a lot more selective now.
<snip>
: > It consisted, for the most part of small talk, but then he asked me if I
: > was married. When I answered no, he then asked me if I had a girlfriend.
: > At the time, I thought it was a rather impertinent and pointless question,
: > but I answered no to that as well and didn't think much more about it.
: When I was younger I would have answered the guy, but some time later I
: began to get "wise" to a shift to personal questions and I'd either ask
: something back, like, "Oh, why are you interested?" and see what the guy
: says. Or, another tact would be "Ah... nice of you to ask, but what if I
: said 'yes' and what if I said 'no'?" ... and see what the guy says.
I have a variety of responses I use now whenever somebody asks me a dumb
question like that. Usually, the subject's never brought up again....
: My
: little alarm bells start going off when I run into strangers who start a
: conversation on small talk and then shift to personal questions. I'll tell
: you a dangerous thing, just as a tangent but relevant to what I'm getting
: at. Back 30 years ago when I was in my 20s and in California a guy said
: something to me that scared me at the time and I didn't ask him to expand
: on the issue but somewhere in the conversation was the topic of marital
: state and he said something like "you know, everyone around here
: considers that if somebody is 25 and unmarried, then they have to be
: gay". At the time, he and I and four other guys were all in the Army
: working at LRL and none of us were married (and only one had a
: girlfriend). And, I had this thought "Now, why did this guy say what
: he said?" More frightening was "And, is that what a lot of people really
: think?" Then, that question branched out into several more, such as,
: "Why did this guy even bring this up?" I could fill in some more blanks as
: part of the mystery, but that would also go beyond the scope of this
: banter. Suffice it to say that we all worked in a secure area, too, that
: required high level security clearances. It was a period in my life that
: held many "war stories", too. But, nothing like medical school and
: biomedical environments.
One of the things I enjoyed while I was doing my Ph. D. residency was that
I could work at home by myself, thus avoiding a lot of that kind of
mindless chit-chat. Usually that sort of talk, in my experience, is
started by people who have far too much time on their hands.
Many years ago, I bought and read a copy of "Corporate Cultures" by Deal
and Kennedy. In it was a story about two military officers who eventually
rose high in the ranks because they stories about each other, each
enhancing the other's reputation.
<snip>
: Reminds me of a few times in my life when I noticed that such coincidences
: actually coincided with, or were congruent with, what third and fourth
: parties "gossipped" to me in the hallway about, and I could put 2+2
: together. Now, if it happened to me that my boss started making
: unreasonable demands on me, I'd be seriously thinking about doing two
: things: i) have a little friendly chat with him ("say, starting about X
: months ago you started Y extra projects and this is eating into my spare
: time and I'd like to know why"), and ii) start mixing with other employees
: and see if anyone else is getting their load piled up, too. Sometimes
: overlings are more sypathetic to married guys because they know they have
: more responsibilities (wife & kids, etc), but also sometimes they might be
: trying to get you to get mad and quit.
Aren't office conspiracies fun?
Early in my career, I was working for a company that thought nothing of
making people work late. In fact, it was expected of them. When I
brought up th subject with my then-supervisor, I was told that "we are all
professionals here--we work unlimited hours", or words to that effect.
In other words, that's what I got paid the "big bucks" for.
Years later, I happened to find an exerpt from the provincial legislative
act dealing with labour issues. What I read proved that what I had been
told by that supervisor was nonsense. Then, I found out even later, that
not all workers in Alberta are governed by that act. A separate agreement
can, apparently, overrule that act.
: So, sometimes you have to try to figure out what is going on,
: psychologically, in your work environment. Part of my advice: i) have your
: long range radar turned on all the time ("No More Pearl Harbors" bumper
: sticker on your car?), and ii) look over your shoulder from time to
: time... backstabs come from the rear. Anyone standing behind you
: recently that you don't know why they are there?
<snip>
That sounds all too familiar.... (Dilbert isn't a comic strip--it's a
documentary!)
Arthur Sowers
On 10 Jul 2001 jat...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Arthur Sowers (arth...@magpage.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : > Oh, I tried all of that, only to find that I'd be on the dole for several
> : > months at a time with few interviews and no offers.
>
> : Ok, so what did you do about "few interviews and no offers"?
>
> I kept cranking out my letters of application. This was during the middle
> to late 1980s. The situation changed since then as have both my
> priorities and my tactics. I can be a lot more selective now.
Good.
> <snip>
>
> : > It consisted, for the most part of small talk, but then he asked me if I
> : > was married. When I answered no, he then asked me if I had a girlfriend.
> : > At the time, I thought it was a rather impertinent and pointless question,
> : > but I answered no to that as well and didn't think much more about it.
>
> : When I was younger I would have answered the guy, but some time later I
> : began to get "wise" to a shift to personal questions and I'd either ask
> : something back, like, "Oh, why are you interested?" and see what the guy
> : says. Or, another tact would be "Ah... nice of you to ask, but what if I
> : said 'yes' and what if I said 'no'?" ... and see what the guy says.
>
> I have a variety of responses I use now whenever somebody asks me a dumb
> question like that. Usually, the subject's never brought up again....
Good.
> : My
> : little alarm bells start going off when I run into strangers who start a
> : conversation on small talk and then shift to personal questions. I'll tell
> : you a dangerous thing, just as a tangent but relevant to what I'm getting
> : at. Back 30 years ago when I was in my 20s and in California a guy said
> : something to me that scared me at the time and I didn't ask him to expand
> : on the issue but somewhere in the conversation was the topic of marital
> : state and he said something like "you know, everyone around here
> : considers that if somebody is 25 and unmarried, then they have to be
> : gay". At the time, he and I and four other guys were all in the Army
> : working at LRL and none of us were married (and only one had a
> : girlfriend). And, I had this thought "Now, why did this guy say what
> : he said?" More frightening was "And, is that what a lot of people really
> : think?" Then, that question branched out into several more, such as,
> : "Why did this guy even bring this up?" I could fill in some more blanks as
> : part of the mystery, but that would also go beyond the scope of this
> : banter. Suffice it to say that we all worked in a secure area, too, that
> : required high level security clearances. It was a period in my life that
> : held many "war stories", too. But, nothing like medical school and
> : biomedical environments.
>
> One of the things I enjoyed while I was doing my Ph. D. residency was that
> I could work at home by myself, thus avoiding a lot of that kind of
> mindless chit-chat. Usually that sort of talk, in my experience, is
> started by people who have far too much time on their hands.
Well, I don't mind mindless chit-chat...weve got a lot of it right
here...because it contributes to the "bonding" process and this means
developing aquaintances, friends, allies, alliances, etc. (and enemies,
detractors, hecklers, etc.)
> Many years ago, I bought and read a copy of "Corporate Cultures" by Deal
> and Kennedy. In it was a story about two military officers who eventually
> rose high in the ranks because they stories about each other, each
> enhancing the other's reputation.
There is also Eric Bern's book "Games People Play", which is decades old,
but quite insightful.
> <snip>
>
> : Reminds me of a few times in my life when I noticed that such coincidences
> : actually coincided with, or were congruent with, what third and fourth
> : parties "gossipped" to me in the hallway about, and I could put 2+2
> : together. Now, if it happened to me that my boss started making
> : unreasonable demands on me, I'd be seriously thinking about doing two
> : things: i) have a little friendly chat with him ("say, starting about X
> : months ago you started Y extra projects and this is eating into my spare
> : time and I'd like to know why"), and ii) start mixing with other employees
> : and see if anyone else is getting their load piled up, too. Sometimes
> : overlings are more sypathetic to married guys because they know they have
> : more responsibilities (wife & kids, etc), but also sometimes they might be
> : trying to get you to get mad and quit.
>
> Aren't office conspiracies fun?
Oh, definitely. Why watch soap operas on TV when you can be part of real
ones?
And, if you are in high offices (such as presidents and congressmen and
interns), you'll really open the pandora's box and get expanded publicity.
> Early in my career, I was working for a company that thought nothing of
> making people work late. In fact, it was expected of them. When I
> brought up th subject with my then-supervisor, I was told that "we are all
> professionals here--we work unlimited hours", or words to that effect.
> In other words, that's what I got paid the "big bucks" for.
Meaning when you divide the time put in into the pay, you were getting
paid about the same as the underlings that were not professionals. ;-)
> Years later, I happened to find an exerpt from the provincial legislative
> act dealing with labour issues. What I read proved that what I had been
> told by that supervisor was nonsense. Then, I found out even later, that
> not all workers in Alberta are governed by that act. A separate agreement
> can, apparently, overrule that act.
Well, we have a constitution in the US with all kinds of nice things, but
when you move into a commercial setting, you start losing stuff like
"freedom of speech" etc. Shoot your mouth off, and you can get fired.
And, its legal.
> : So, sometimes you have to try to figure out what is going on,
> : psychologically, in your work environment. Part of my advice: i) have your
> : long range radar turned on all the time ("No More Pearl Harbors" bumper
> : sticker on your car?), and ii) look over your shoulder from time to
> : time... backstabs come from the rear. Anyone standing behind you
> : recently that you don't know why they are there?
>
> <snip>
>
> That sounds all too familiar....
Very!
(Dilbert isn't a comic strip--it's a
> documentary!)
Bingo!
Art
Philotsopher
"Rich Lemert" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3B4A4863...@mindspring.com...
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'd also have industry decide it needs a PhD and then take one of its
> > present employees and send him or her back to school (at the company's
> > expense).
>
> And what's the company to do in the meantime while it's waiting the 5-6
yearsit
> will need to for that person to finish his/her studies?
>
true they should be more than willing to make a long term investment in
their workers future. They won't do that because they would rather dump the
employee in the trash can and hire another.
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
: "Rich Lemert" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
<snip>
: > And what's the company to do in the meantime while it's waiting the 5-6
: yearsit
: > will need to for that person to finish his/her studies?
: >
: Every corporation now says that people are their greatest asset. If that's
: true they should be more than willing to make a long term investment in
: their workers future. They won't do that because they would rather dump the
: employee in the trash can and hire another.
And hire them for less.
Most companies I worked for were afraid that if they "trained" me, two
possibilities may arise. Either I'd exercise my freedom and leave for a
better job or they'd have to give me some incentive to stay.
Nah, better for them to keep me as dumb as possible and kick me around
whenever they felt like it.
Arthur Sowers
Rich has very often favored the corporation's welfare over the welfare of
the individual or employee. I think most people who read his words,
sentences, and paragraphs and comprehend their meaning will see a whole
line of thinking that individuals and employees really are underlings who
usually have defects, shortcomings, and no rights or needs and that
companies do no wrong, need robots and slaves and servants that can be
hired and fired for any or no reason. Included in this line of thinking is
the imperitive that we should not even talk about or think or even hint
that companies might do anything bad to these underlings. He makes maybe
two posts per year about this crap that they do, but even then, rarely
gives any concrete examples. And, yet this is a constant topic in our
printed and broadcast media.
Philotsopher
"Arthur Sowers" <arth...@magpage.com> wrote in message
news:9ilou0$ild$0...@216.155.0.50...
>
>
> Rich has very often favored the corporation's welfare over the welfare of
> the individual or employee. I think most people who read his words,
> sentences, and paragraphs and comprehend their meaning will see a whole
> line of thinking that individuals and employees really are underlings who
> usually have defects, shortcomings, and no rights or needs and that
> companies do no wrong, need robots and slaves and servants that can be
> hired and fired for any or no reason. Included in this line of thinking is
> the imperitive that we should not even talk about or think or even hint
> that companies might do anything bad to these underlings. He makes maybe
> two posts per year about this crap that they do, but even then, rarely
> gives any concrete examples. And, yet this is a constant topic in our
> printed and broadcast media.
>
>
type of wannabe that honestly believes if they behave like an ethically
deprived executive they will eventually be rich. Rich, are you rich yet?
Rich Lemert
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Philotsopher wrote:
>
> >
> > "Rich Lemert" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B4A4863...@mindspring.com...
> > > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > >
>
> Rich has very often favored the corporation's welfare over the welfare of
> the individual or employee. I think most people who read his words,
> sentences, and paragraphs and comprehend their meaning will see a whole
> line of thinking that individuals and employees really are underlings who
> usually have defects, shortcomings, and no rights or needs and that
> companies do no wrong, need robots and slaves and servants that can be
> hired and fired for any or no reason. Included in this line of thinking is
> the imperitive that we should not even talk about or think or even hint
> that companies might do anything bad to these underlings. He makes maybe
> two posts per year about this crap that they do, but even then, rarely
> gives any concrete examples. And, yet this is a constant topic in our
> printed and broadcast media.
I think that most people reading these words will realize that Art is up to
hisusual dishonest misrepresentation of my views. His claim that I feel
employees
have no rights is complete and utter hogwash. I have in the past freely admitted
that companies can and often do mistreat their employees. Unlike Art, however,
I do not hold employees blameless either. Where Art and I part company is his
insistence that the employee/employer relationship should be completely
one-sided
in favor of the employee. He has repeatedly demonstrated his belief that
employers
should place the welfare of their employees as their sole objective, and that
this
means they should be employed whether there is enough revenue to justify their
continued employment or not. (I have yet to figure out how forcing a company
to close - thereby destroying the careers of everyone at the company - benefits
anyone except the bankruptcy lawyers, and yet that is where Art's policies would
lead when carried to their logical conclusion.)
Rich Lemert
Arthur Sowers
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Rich Lemert wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Philotsopher wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Rich Lemert" <lls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B4A4863...@mindspring.com...
> > > > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > Rich has very often favored the corporation's welfare over the welfare of
> > the individual or employee. I think most people who read his words,
> > sentences, and paragraphs and comprehend their meaning will see a whole
> > line of thinking that individuals and employees really are underlings who
> > usually have defects, shortcomings, and no rights or needs and that
> > companies do no wrong, need robots and slaves and servants that can be
> > hired and fired for any or no reason. Included in this line of thinking is
> > the imperitive that we should not even talk about or think or even hint
> > that companies might do anything bad to these underlings. He makes maybe
> > two posts per year about this crap that they do, but even then, rarely
> > gives any concrete examples. And, yet this is a constant topic in our
> > printed and broadcast media.
>
> I think that most people reading these words will realize that Art is up to
> hisusual dishonest misrepresentation of my views.
I think that anyone who adds up the number of RLs posts about ME compared
to his posts about the crap that goes on will find the former really are
vastly larger in number than the later.
His claim that I feel
> employees
> have no rights is complete and utter hogwash.
But RLs feeling that companies have many more rights than employees is
easy to see and find.
I have in the past freely admitted
>
> that companies can and often do mistreat their employees.
"very rarely" is more like the truth.
Unlike Art, however,
> I do not hold employees blameless either.
As if employees have any power compared to employers.
Where Art and I part company is his
> insistence that the employee/employer relationship should be completely
> one-sided
> in favor of the employee.
As if "The King" deserves to live in the castle, and the peasants live in
huts.
He has repeatedly demonstrated his belief that
> employers
> should place the welfare of their employees as their sole objective, and that
> this
> means they should be employed whether there is enough revenue to justify their
> continued employment or not.
Bad sentence. Lets look at Bill Gates wallet compared to his temp
underlings.
(I have yet to figure out how forcing a company
> to close - thereby destroying the careers of everyone at the company - benefits
> anyone except the bankruptcy lawyers, and yet that is where Art's policies would
As if doing something for the employees is guaranteed to kill the company.
RL is full of shit.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> lead when carried to their logical conclusion.)
>
> Rich Lemert
>
>