Thursday, April 26, 2007

Hunting for benefits information...

SnobU is is not run to maximize the life of those doing research (see previous). I worked before going to graduate school. It was a salaried position at a research university. The benefits were nice. When I was hired, I got a slew of information such as what benefits options I would have. They also told me when the benefits meeting was. The key here is that this RU went out of their way to inform me of my choices and what needed to be done when. SnobU? Nope. You are told you to contact the benefits office in your letter of appointment within 30 days to discuss the benefits. That is it. It doesn't say you must contact the benefits in 30 days to get benefits just please do so and then once you do please inform your department's business office. No other information is sent your way. You have to actively pursue it. Of course when you call your benefits officer, the person is not always available which leads to a string of phone tag if you are lucky or waiting for someone to call you bac. On top of that, the benefits office is closed half a day/week. It is more trouble than it should be. I am sure it is cheaper for SnobU to run things this way but really when starting a post-doc, should I have to be going through all of this? How hard is it really to send me a packet with information? If the other RU can do it, why can't SnobU? Why must I hunt?

1 comment:

steppen wolf said...


I saw your comment on the framing post I wrote. You say that framing might be in dangerous hands when used by scientists, as scientists might "end up feeding into societal norms".

My comment is: if we all use framing in our daily life whenever we talk about our research to friends and family (unless your entire social sphere is made up of scientists), why would now be dangerous to frame when talking to the Anonimous Public?

We frame when we talk to somebody who does not agree with us; we frame when we want to make sure that somebody from the other side of the world understands what we mean...etc.

Look at the discussion started by Moran and PZ, about how successful rude suffragettes were: they are framing their approach to active atheism as something successful, successful because it has been show to be so, according to their interpretation, by history. Are they being dishonest, or dangerous, for that matter? No, they are just making a point. Maybe using a "frame" not everybody likes - it is a bit of a hyperbole - but making a valid point nevertheless.