Major in what you're PASSIONATE in and other useless platitudes

[Andy Resnick]

Valid point.

But my original contention was; contracts for a salaried position will surely have a maximum number of hours the employee is required to work, wouldn't they? Working beyond that is simply letting yourself be walked over, unless you have some kind of direct stake in the company profits.

They don't specify- a full time employee is one that works *at least* 40 hours per week. There's been some recent developments here (and most likely, other academic institutions that receive federal grant dollars) regarding time allotments. The driving force for this problem is MDs that have NIH grants and see patients, but the problem is very generic.

Let's say I have a full-time 12 month academic appointment- primary faculty position. I have certain obligations regarding teaching and service. There may even be a hard commitment to teach a certain fraction of my time. On grant applications, I receive salary based on a certain fraction of my time I promise to spend on the project. So far, all is well.

The issue is that the administration sets a benchmark of 75% of my salary is to come from extramural research dollars. By rights, that means I should be spending 75% of my time on research- in the lab, getting data. Time spent writing papers, writing new applications, writing on this forum, are all not allowable expenses, according to federal guidelines. That leaves 25% of my time to be spend on teaching, service, writing, going to meetings, seminars, student recruiting and mentorship, grading papers, student committee meetings...

It's clear how this is going- how to reconcile my time? The easiest solution is to simply re-define the hours worked in a week.

 

[rabbitweed]

Not really. I could only find two of my past offer letters... one said nothing on the subject of hours. The other, being a part-time position, said "three days per week", but did not give a specified number of hours to be worked per day.

The expectation is generally that you will work more than 8 hours on the average. If you can get more done in less time, you probably won't have a problem working less... people are generally measuring results, not hours.

In my experience, most engineers do not think of this as a labor vs. management issue. For better or for worse, there is very little class consciousness among engineers.

Interesting. Where do you live?

In many states in Australia (where I intend to work after I graduate) they have what's known as an Award which is a list of requirements for employers in the industry has to follow, and it covers things like normal working hours, overtime requirements etc. In theory it should provide good protection for employees being told to work ridiculous hours without compensation, provided they have the back bone to assert themselves and know their rights.

Part of my postings in this thread is due to the fact I have very little faith in managment to not try every trick in the book to try and save themselves money by sacrificing your time without comepnsation.

 

[turbo]

Part of my postings in this thread is due to the fact I have very little faith in managment to not try every trick in the book to try and save themselves money by sacrificing your time without comepnsation.

In the US, most salaried workers (in the industries that I have worked in, at least) are expected to put in tons of unpaid overtime. Also, many states have "at will" employment provisions, so that your boss can fire you for absolutely no reason at all, and it is almost impossible for a fired worker to get any relief in the court system. Even worse, being fired (for any reason) is a pejorative condition in the eyes in the states' unemployment insurance systems (as opposed to being "laid off" for lack of work) and it is a long, tough road to gain any unemployment benefits, since the state regards any such firing as a "for cause" firing, and the onus is on the employee to prove otherwise. Anybody who has been forced to try to prove a negative knows where this is going.

 

[rabbitweed]

In the US, most salaried workers (in the industries that I have worked in, at least) are expected to put in tons of unpaid overtime. Also, many states have "at will" employment provisions, so that your boss can fire you for absolutely no reason at all, and it is almost impossible for a fired worker to get any relief in the court system. Even worse, being fired (for any reason) is a pejorative condition in the eyes in the states' unemployment insurance systems (as opposed to being "laid off" for lack of work) and it is a long, tough road to gain any unemployment benefits, since the state regards any such firing as a "for cause" firing, and the onus is on the employee to prove otherwise. Anybody who has been forced to try to prove a negative knows where this is going.

:O

My God.

I hope Americans reading this don't take it as an insult, but sounds downright 3rd world to me.

Certainly has put some of the things I read on the internet about Engineering working conditions in perspective though!

 

[turbo]

:O

My God.

I hope Americans reading this don't take it as an insult, but sounds downright 3rd world to me.

Certainly has put some of the things I read on the internet about Engineering working conditions in perspective though!

This is real-world, rabbitweed. The oligarchs who have dominated our government for the last century have carved their empires out of the backs of people who have been indoctrinated to see their contributions minimized and legally negated.

 

[rabbitweed]

This is real-world, rabbitweed. The oligarchs who have dominated our government for the last century have carved their empires out of the backs of people who have been indoctrinated to see their contributions minimized and legally negated.

Yes, that is real world...in the US.

But you should understand that that sort of working culture, where you can fire people for no reason what so ever and the like is not universal in the western world.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I'm in the US, Silicon Valley in particular.

Basically, there are two types of employees in the US: "exempt" and "non-exempt". "Non-exempt" employees are paid hourly and are often unionized. I know that CA has rules mandating overtime whenever more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week are worked if you are in this category. If you are working in a union shop, there are also prescribed procedures for firing employees that are laid out in the union contract.

"Exempt" employees include management and professionals (such as engineers) who are paid a salary. I don't think there is any legal reason why they couldn't be in a union, but they never are. They are typically hired "at will", and can be fired for almost any reason. (The few protections are for various types of discrimination and for whistleblowing.) There are no limits on hours or requirements to pay overtime. Refusing to work more is certainly grounds for dismissal.

The US is probably the most extreme capitalist society on the planet. This produces a lot of wealth, but there is a definite social cost.

 

[Dzyubak]

Wow, this thread is getting quite a bit of attention. So many answers in a few days, whereas certain homework questions have been unanswered since 2007 :-).

I am also looking through careers, I am currently an undergraduate in, guess what... engineering. Biomedical engineering, to be precise. So, I am actually approaching the issue from a different side. From what I'm hearing, biomedical engineering has rather decent starting salaries. Recently I've found that I'm very interested in physics, though. Having heard my father's story of working as a Ph.D. in nuclear physics for 30 years just to reach a salary of $60,000, I do think that is a somewhat ungreateful job. No offence, nuclear physicists, you're doing a great job and what I'm saying is an expression of sympathy.
However, being a BME I'm close to medicine and have found a very interesting physics specialty called Medical Physics. Medical means interesting (to me), applicable, well payed, and stable. Physics means interesting.
There are two tracks loosely described as "research" and "quality control". I'm still inquiring about details but it seems the research side does work with improving scanner types (CT, MRI, PET) - lower dose, faster acquisition, more image contrast, imaging of moving tissues etc. The quality control branch works with calculating doeses for treatments, setting up scanners, and other related aspects. Both sides can go to work in industry.
If medicine is at all interesting to you, perhaps, you should look at this field.

 

[symbolipoint]

Dzyubak:

There are two tracks loosely described as "research" and "quality control". I'm still inquiring about details but it seems the research side does work with improving scanner types (CT, MRI, PET) - lower dose, faster acquisition, more image contrast, imaging of moving tissues etc. The quality control branch works with calculating doeses for treatments, setting up scanners, and other related aspects. Both sides can go to work in industry.

Remember one more branch - Development.

Generally, the goal of Research is to learn and understand. The goal of Development is to create and modify, or more simply put, to design. Quality Control's goal is to monitor production and be sure that items are produced correctly, and to catch and retain and fix defects before distribution.

 

[comp_math]

In my opinion, every job has its own headaches. Frankly, I would rather chill but that would give you no money. In any job, the question is how much you can tolerate. That's life. Don't need to think so much. Just do what you want to do now and do it well. The future is uncertain.

 

[ephedyn]

TS > I'll send you a PM.

 

[avant-garde]

While your oodles of sarcasm are delightful, there will always be someone who does less work than you but still gets paid the same.

Not to be mean or anything, but I'm sure that's the rare, lucky exception that you shouldn't be comparing yourself with. There are probably many people who work harder than you but still get paid the same as you.

 

[Nick M]

Actually, the engineer's story was pure capitalism.

The purpose of Management is not to enrich employees... it is to enrich the shareholders. If someone steps up to do more than their share of work, the management will certainly allow this! And if such people can be bought off with just a small promotion, all the better.

If you want more money, you have to ask for it. If the company doesn't think you're worth it, be prepared to leave, because that is the only leverage you have.

It's a harsh world, I admit.

Exactly - Perfectly put.

 

[pzona]

I certainly have less experience than most of you (I'm an undergrad chem major), but here's what I think. I would rather work in pure chemistry for the rest of my life and make a decent living than settle for a job as, say, a pharmacist or pharmaceutical sales rep, which is what I see a lot of my peers who are interested in chemistry doing. I understand that I may change my mind at some point, and maybe I will end up getting interested in something along the lines of pharmacy. But one thing I do know is that I won't specialize in something I have less interest in just because it makes more money. Is pay in the scientific research field fair? Not always. But personally, I would rather stick with chemistry (which I chose because I am passionate about it) and make average money than get a degree in pseudo-chemistry or an area of chemistry I'm not interested in and make a "lot" of money.

 

[qball]

However, being a BME I'm close to medicine and have found a very interesting physics specialty called Medical Physics. Medical means interesting (to me), applicable, well payed, and stable. Physics means interesting.

You should read up on medical physics, especially the recent posts on this forum, and then reconsider your opinion. Medical physicists are indeed well-paid, but the field is not necessarily interesting.

 

[avant-garde]

While your oodles of sarcasm are delightful, there will always be someone who does less work than you but still gets paid the same. It happened all the time in the jobs I had up until this point, and I've heard all about it from people who are already in the industry. Joe Schmoe isn't a person; he's a fact of life.

Could you give a specific example of "someone who does less work than you but still gets paid the same"?

 

[amv_24]

=.= ...i'm currently in a similar situation..l really like physics and am thinking of doing a Physics degree but i don't want to end up in a job with low salary. but then again, i do think doing something that one like will make his/her life happier.. well anyway, good luck to you. :)

 

[kote]

Could you give a specific example of "someone who does less work than you but still gets paid the same"?

This happens all the time. It's not uncommon at all. But after a while, you get the promotions and raises and they don't. Maybe they lose their job. Maybe they continue at that level of production and their career plateaus.

If this isn't, in general, how it works at your company, it's time to find a new place to work. Having said that, it's also the responsibility of each employee to make their work and their value known and not to passive-aggressively complain on the internet.

The world isn't designed to be fair, but your boss wants the best possible people working for him. Make your boss successful and you will be fine.