Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#51

Post by nashashmi »

matthewowen wrote: post #42
nashashmi wrote: post #2

What is there possibly for a bunch of employees who have lived with status quo for so many years all of a sudden want to change? It is typically new employees who come in (from elsewhere?) that feel like changing everything around them. And then either they get those changes, or get comfortable with the things that exist, or leave. Edit: Reasons for unions historically have been better working conditions and better w…

Are you sure you read the article closely enough? These are early career researchers: grad students and postdocs. These are generally roles someone holds for no more than 6 years, often less. They _are_ all new employees.

Yes they are all new employees. Funny either I read it wrong or the headline changed. I thought it said NIH employees who had been with the firm for long time.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#52

Post by rflrob »

Retric wrote: post #30
iso1337 wrote: post #13

NIH should build more institutes in cheaper areas (eg not NoVa). It’s a win win since it will help revitalize poorer areas of America and save on costs. It will also tilt more senators/congresspeople to vote for NIH funding, similar to military base funding

Military personnel move where you tell them, manufacturing jobs can train people up just about anywhere, but research isn’t so simple. It’s a real chicken and egg problem around local talent. Bethesda/Rockville/Baltimore has several different organizations doing medical research which makes the attractive locations for researchers to live. Locate in say Boise Idaho and positions are open for longer and you will need…

I think the biomedical academic job market is tight enough that you could fairly easily attract a strong class of researchers to nearly any second tier city. Maybe not the best of the best of the best (at first), but there’s enough bright people doing 6+ year post docs that you’ll recruit junior faculty in a flash.

Credentials: did my PhD and postdoc at R1 institutions, before going to greener pastures in industry.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#53

Post by data_acquired »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #35

I think academic scientists are criminally underpaid (especially at the NIH), and really hope something can be done to rectify this. However, I don’t think unionization is the way. Ultimately, unions' power comes from the threat of striking. Unions' demands only have teeth because of their ability to completely suspend economic output for an entire company or industry. This is possible because economic output of most…

Researcher here. I agree with your assessment of the way credit is given to authors, and there's a possibility of being scooped because folks are on strike.

I think you're forgetting that there's work-related conditions arising from not having a union that can cause you to get scooped. What about being scooped because you have terrible insurance that requires you to spend time away from a lab or because you have terrible pay and can't afford a decent day-care for your child? Or if, as a post-doc, you have a great idea but your professor is a harasser and a bully who faces little consequences for their actions? Remember, this isn't industry where you can walk over to a different job with better work conditions. Re-starting a project from scratch is months if not years.

And scooping is a physically survivable event. Poor insurance can some times literally not be a survivable event, and poor working conditions are a mental and physical health disaster.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#54

Post by michaelt »

Retric wrote: post #30
iso1337 wrote: post #13

NIH should build more institutes in cheaper areas (eg not NoVa). It’s a win win since it will help revitalize poorer areas of America and save on costs. It will also tilt more senators/congresspeople to vote for NIH funding, similar to military base funding

Military personnel move where you tell them, manufacturing jobs can train people up just about anywhere, but research isn’t so simple. It’s a real chicken and egg problem around local talent. Bethesda/Rockville/Baltimore has several different organizations doing medical research which makes the attractive locations for researchers to live. Locate in say Boise Idaho and positions are open for longer and you will need…

Los Alamos National Lab is a 12,700 person [1] government research facility in a town of 13,200 population [2]. Median household income $98k, highest millionaire concentration of any US city, highest percentage of people with doctorate degrees in the nation. Nearest IKEA store? 500 miles away.

A government lab can get scientists to relocate their families to the middle of nowhere. All it takes is a budget of $3.92 billion or $300k per job.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos,_New_Mexico

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#55

Post by tyingq »

RobotToaster wrote: post #11
DirectorKrennic wrote: post #3

[flagged]

>We all know how Republicans feel about federal workers. It was a democrat that busted the rail strikes. Both parties despise unions, one is just more vocal about it.

Railways and airlines are a little different than other unions with the Railway Labor Act...it was specifically designed to avoid strikes. Meaning both parties might be more aligned around their opinions on union activity for railways and airlines, but still diverge for other types of unions.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#56

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

Eumenes wrote: post #40
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, even here the impulse is immediately to suggest cutting staff and directly saying that paying public servants is charity. You didn't addressed my point in terms of CoL adjustments. How does adding AI enure that high performance, productive staff members get these adjustments without it being viewed as a waste of tax dollars by the public?

I wouldn't suggest AI making policy decisions, but replacing jobs at the post office or DMV. You aren't entitled to a job. Congress can vote on CoL adjustments for workers, both at the state and federal levels. Right now, its pay to play - the unions, some of the largest political contributors in the US, just pay (bribe) the representatives to advocate for them, in return for donations to campaigns.

> You aren't entitled to a job.

Total non-sequitur. I didn't say anyone was. Not everyone is entitled to a job, but as you said in regards to policy decisions, there are jobs that are required. A lot of the mail service still needs to exist. We are nowhere near machines delivering the mail to people. And those people need to be paid and they need to live on that paycheck.

> Congress can vote on CoL adjustments for workers, both at the state and federal levels.

Yes, this is the mechanism, but that doesn't explain why or how they'd want to go with an adjustment. It's a bad look for a politician to give people a CoL adjustment - many people see it as their wage being stolen to pay another. I'm not saying that unions are the answer, but how do these workers have a voice when the public actively doesn't want them to be paid more?

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#57

Post by ProjectArcturis »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #35

I think academic scientists are criminally underpaid (especially at the NIH), and really hope something can be done to rectify this. However, I don’t think unionization is the way. Ultimately, unions' power comes from the threat of striking. Unions' demands only have teeth because of their ability to completely suspend economic output for an entire company or industry. This is possible because economic output of most…

The pressure that a union can place on the NIH is not cutting off production. If basic bioscience research stopped, it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly.

The pressure instead is social and political. Union-friendly politicians would haul the NIH administrators in to grill them about why they're blocking cures and cheating scientists.

Thus, if some of the scientists in the union continue to work surreptitiously, it would have little impact on the effectiveness of the strike.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#58

Post by data_acquired »

>Although NIH wages aren’t inherently tied to those training grants, if wages increased significantly for NIH fellows, universities might “raise holy hell”, Wiest says, because it could incentivize researchers to apply for NIH positions instead of those at universities.

This is a pretty weak point. There's hundreds of research areas and problems not worked on at the NIH that are explored in the hundreds of universities in the US. I don't see anyone switching research areas for better pay --- your skill sets are often tied to a certain class of problems. Sure, yes, there may be such effects in certain research areas. But what fraction of university budgets even go towards post-doctoral fellow stipends (when weighed against every other expenditure in a university budget)?

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#59

Post by MontyCarloHall »

data_acquired wrote: post #53
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #35

I think academic scientists are criminally underpaid (especially at the NIH), and really hope something can be done to rectify this. However, I don’t think unionization is the way. Ultimately, unions' power comes from the threat of striking. Unions' demands only have teeth because of their ability to completely suspend economic output for an entire company or industry. This is possible because economic output of most…

Researcher here. I agree with your assessment of the way credit is given to authors, and there's a possibility of being scooped because folks are on strike. I think you're forgetting that there's work-related conditions arising from not having a union that can cause you to get scooped. What about being scooped because you have terrible insurance that requires you to spend time away from a lab or because you have terr…

I agree that all of the working conditions you mention are deplorable, and must be addressed. But again, I'm not sure a union is the right way to go about it. Unions only have power to bargain for things like insurance, childcare, or strong anti-harassment policies because of their ability to strike, and strikes are only consequential if almost everyone is on board.

For every researcher whose career is set back due to crappy insurance or an abusive PI, and for whom striking to advocate for better working conditions would be their top priority during a labor dispute, there are far more researchers who are unaffected (or indifferent) to these problems, and for whom finishing their project will always be their top priority. A strike simply won't accomplish anything if only a fraction of workers actually walk out.

Re: Thousands of early-career NIH researchers forming union for first time

#60

Post by MontyCarloHall »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #57
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #35

I think academic scientists are criminally underpaid (especially at the NIH), and really hope something can be done to rectify this. However, I don’t think unionization is the way. Ultimately, unions' power comes from the threat of striking. Unions' demands only have teeth because of their ability to completely suspend economic output for an entire company or industry. This is possible because economic output of most…

The pressure that a union can place on the NIH is not cutting off production. If basic bioscience research stopped, it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly. The pressure instead is social and political. Union-friendly politicians would haul the NIH administrators in to grill them about why they're blocking cures and cheating scientists. Thus, if some of the scientists in the union continue to work…

Activists can apply social and political pressure without being in a union. The distinguishing aspect of union activism is the union's ability to collectively bargain, backed by its ability to collectively strike, with grave consequences to the employer.

As you say, even "if basic bioscience research stopped [in its entirety], it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly." If the consequences of a strike are not grave to the employer (even if you could get everyone on board), then the power backing the union is greatly diminished.

Edit: as I wrote in another post, academic union strikes can be quite effective at universities, where many academics teach in addition to performing research. A instructor strike can have extremely grave consequences to the university. But the NIH is purely a research institute, so this does not apply.

Post reply on HN