The Venting Thread

[apl68]

apl68, do you know which book and verse that is? I may need to keep that scripture citation in my back pocket in case of similar issues.

Deuteronomy 24:14-15:  "You will not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether of your own people or a foreigner.  You will give him his wages the day he earns them, for he is poor and needs them, or his cry will be against you to the Lord, and it will be a sin for you."

James 5:1-5:

"Consider this, rich men, weep and how for the miseries about to come upon you.  Your riches are rotted, your garments moth-eaten.  Your gold and silver are tarnished, and the rust of them will be a witness against you, and will eat your flesh as fire.  You have piled up treasure in the last days.  The wages of the laborers who reaped your fields that you have defrauded them of cry out, and the Lord of Hosts has heard these cries.  You have lived in pleasure on the Earth.  You have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter."

Just treatment of slaves/hired employees is a theme in both Old and New Testaments.

[Langue_doc]

apl68, do you know which book and verse that is? I may need to keep that scripture citation in my back pocket in case of similar issues.

Deuteronomy 24:14-15:  "You will not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether of your own people or a foreigner.  You will give him his wages the day he earns them, for he is poor and needs them, or his cry will be against you to the Lord, and it will be a sin for you."

James 5:1-5:

"Consider this, rich men, weep and how for the miseries about to come upon you.  Your riches are rotted, your garments moth-eaten.  Your gold and silver are tarnished, and the rust of them will be a witness against you, and will eat your flesh as fire.  You have piled up treasure in the last days.  The wages of the laborers who reaped your fields that you have defrauded them of cry out, and the Lord of Hosts has heard these cries.  You have lived in pleasure on the Earth.  You have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter."

Just treatment of slaves/hired employees is a theme in both Old and New Testaments.

From the King James version:
Leviticus 19:13

- Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

Jeremiah 22:13

Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

Deuteronomy 24:14-15

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:

At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

[smallcleanrat]

Had a discussion with my PI about job searching in anticipation of graduation, and it was depressing.

We talked about him serving as a reference when I start applying to positions. He mentioned not having yet figured out how he plans to discuss my strengths while still being honest as to how my health issues have slowed my progress over the years.

If your own PI can only give you a recommendation with an asterisk ("Well, SCR is good, but..."), there's no reason to be optimistic about employment prospects. Seems like a good way to get your application dumped straight in the trash.

I don't know what I'm going to do with myself after leaving school.

[Antiphon1]

Had a discussion with my PI about job searching in anticipation of graduation, and it was depressing.

We talked about him serving as a reference when I start applying to positions. He mentioned not having yet figured out how he plans to discuss my strengths while still being honest as to how my health issues have slowed my progress over the years.

If your own PI can only give you a recommendation with an asterisk ("Well, SCR is good, but..."), there's no reason to be optimistic about employment prospects. Seems like a good way to get your application dumped straight in the trash.

I don't know what I'm going to do with myself after leaving school.

First, your physical disability has nothing to do with your intellectual output.  Second, your PI while moderately well intentioned is tremendously unhelpful.  I have no personal knowledge about your health or its impact on your work.  I do know that you can't be discriminated against because of a disability.  There is a place for you outside of academia. You just need to find your spot. 

Oh, and the PI isn't supposed to mention anything except your work in a recommendation no matter how your health may or may not have been perceived as affecting output.  Any mention of your health is against the law. Don't let this person prevent you from pursuing a career. 

Just as sure as I write this advice, some dingbat judge will decide the freedom from discrimination based on disabilities is not protected by the EEOC.   

[marshwiggle]

First, your physical disability has nothing to do with your intellectual output.  Second, your PI while moderately well intentioned is tremendously unhelpful.  I have no personal knowledge about your health or its impact on your work.  I do know that you can't be discriminated against because of a disability.  There is a place for you outside of academia. You just need to find your spot. 

Oh, and the PI isn't supposed to mention anything except your work in a recommendation no matter how your health may or may not have been perceived as affecting output.  Any mention of your health is against the law.

But wouldn't it be reasonable for an employer to mention someone's rate of absenteeism, particularly if it's significantly above average? And if someone had mental health issues that resulted in outbursts at work, wouldn't it be reasonable for an employer to mention the difficulties in getting along with other employees?

It seems to me that there are many situations where the consequences of the health issues are pertinent, even if the the health issues themselves cannot be divulged.

(Not specifically thinking of SCR's situation; just curious from a legal perspective about where the line is drawn between privacy about health and information about job performance which was affected by health issues.)

[arcturus]

First, your physical disability has nothing to do with your intellectual output.  Second, your PI while moderately well intentioned is tremendously unhelpful.  I have no personal knowledge about your health or its impact on your work.  I do know that you can't be discriminated against because of a disability.  There is a place for you outside of academia. You just need to find your spot. 

Oh, and the PI isn't supposed to mention anything except your work in a recommendation no matter how your health may or may not have been perceived as affecting output.  Any mention of your health is against the law.

But wouldn't it be reasonable for an employer to mention someone's rate of absenteeism, particularly if it's significantly above average? And if someone had mental health issues that resulted in outbursts at work, wouldn't it be reasonable for an employer to mention the difficulties in getting along with other employees?

It seems to me that there are many situations where the consequences of the health issues are pertinent, even if the the health issues themselves cannot be divulged.

(Not specifically thinking of SCR's situation; just curious from a legal perspective about where the line is drawn between privacy about health and information about job performance which was affected by health issues.)

These discussions make me uncomfortable because they come close to "oh, she is likely to be less productive because she will be having children soon. So, instead, let's hire this other person who cannot possibly become pregnant due to his gender." The latter is clearly sex discrimination.

For SCR's situation, I would argue that SCR *is better than* someone who has the same accomplishments but did not have to deal with the health challenges. That SCR persevered through very challenging circumstances is commendable in and of itself. That SCR is close to completing the research required to earn a PhD is commendable. To do both, simultaneously, speaks volumes about SCR's dedication, commitment, and motivation to their field of study.

[Parasaurolophus]

Minor annoyance: partner keeps losing the hatchling's toys out in the world. Yesterday was the fourth time in the last few months.

It's not really a big deal, but I do find it frustrating. I have no trouble keeping track of mulptiple toys brought out there. This last one was lost during a diaper change, which is both understandable (you're focused on something else) and not (because the change is performed in a small space where it's easier to keep track of where things are, and to see what's where).

It's not a big deal, but it is frustrating to be constantly replacing things, and it taking weeks to find and source replacements each time. In the meantime, we have a hatchling asking after the thing, and explaining that it's lost is hard on everyone.

[Antiphon1]

(Not specifically thinking of SCR's situation; just curious from a legal perspective about where the line is drawn between privacy about health and information about job performance which was affected by health issues.)

As a former dean, I can tell you that referring to perceived deficiencies or delays caused by heath related issues in a reference can cause an extremely difficult position to defend for the former employer.  You're getting into reasonable accommodations, grievance policies, HIPPA, and lots of other really fun policy positions that may or may not have any basis in actionable, factual, or even provable job performance statements. My advice is and always will be to advisors and supervisors, stick to factual statements about output not explanations or opinions about your personal perception of why the employee did or did not meet your unstated expectations.  And, yes, this could be about reproductive rights, but again, there is no reason to differentiate between gendered heath events unless we're talking about family leave.  Then, it's a policy question. 

[marshwiggle]

(Not specifically thinking of SCR's situation; just curious from a legal perspective about where the line is drawn between privacy about health and information about job performance which was affected by health issues.)

As a former dean, I can tell you that referring to perceived deficiencies or delays caused by heath related issues in a reference can cause an extremely difficult position to defend for the former employer.  You're getting into reasonable accommodations, grievance policies, HIPPA, and lots of other really fun policy positions that may or may not have any basis in actionable, factual, or even provable job performance statements. My advice is and always will be to advisors and supervisors, stick to factual statements about output not explanations or opinions about your personal perception of why the employee did or did not meet your unstated expectations. And, yes, this could be about reproductive rights, but again, there is no reason to differentiate between gendered heath events unless we're talking about family leave.  Then, it's a policy question.

The bolded part was what I was wondering about. If an employee missed 3 or 4 days a month, would there be any problem in stating that, if no explanation was given as to the cause of the absenteeism?

My sense is that in at least some cases, the lack of explanation might be worse for the person. I had a TA whom I rehired several times, but who had a lot of health issues and so was occasionally absent. I had no problem giving this person a good reference for being smart, conscientious, and responsible, but a future employer's satisfaction in hiring would likely hinge on being aware of the challenges up front. (In other words, an employer with more information might say, "Sure, I can work with that", and everything would be fine, but if they were blindsided, they might be very unhappy and resentful of the employee.)

[Antiphon1]

I've written recommendations for several people whose health problems caused extended absences from assigned duties.  The conundrum the recommender faces when reflecting on performance in these instances must balance whether the person overcame, compensated for, or worked differently during the health event or if the person's heath became an event used to excuse not working.  Poor heath is not necessarily chronic.  Women are not pregnant indefinitely, bones mend, and people most often recover from infectious diseases.  An ongoing heath problem like diabetes, however, cannot be used as a reason to either deny or end employment. Thus, a recommender giving the future employer a heads up amounts to anticipating poor performance based on faulty assumptions.  The real reason the employee has performance problems may or may not have anything to do with their heath.  It might be an excuse because they hated the position or the organization.  You don't know and can't or shouldn't assume your experience will be their next employer's experience.   

Having said this, I would caution people who have chronic conditions to disclose their concerns at the earliest possible time.  An interviewer cannot ask about these conditions, but the interviewee can choose to disclose information.  The choice to continue withhold this type of information can backfire if the employee needs or asks for accommodations in the future. 











As a former dean, I can tell you that referring to perceived deficiencies or delays caused by heath related issues in a reference can cause an extremely difficult position to defend for the former employer.  You're getting into reasonable accommodations, grievance policies, HIPPA, and lots of other really fun policy positions that may or may not have any basis in actionable, factual, or even provable job performance statements. My advice is and always will be to advisors and supervisors, stick to factual statements about output not explanations or opinions about your personal perception of why the employee did or did not meet your unstated expectations. And, yes, this could be about reproductive rights, but again, there is no reason to differentiate between gendered heath events unless we're talking about family leave.  Then, it's a policy question.
[/quote]

The bolded part was what I was wondering about. If an employee missed 3 or 4 days a month, would there be any problem in stating that, if no explanation was given as to the cause of the absenteeism?

My sense is that in at least some cases, the lack of explanation might be worse for the person. I had a TA whom I rehired several times, but who had a lot of health issues and so was occasionally absent. I had no problem giving this person a good reference for being smart, conscientious, and responsible, but a future employer's satisfaction in hiring would likely hinge on being aware of the challenges up front. (In other words, an employer with more information might say, "Sure, I can work with that", and everything would be fine, but if they were blindsided, they might be very unhappy and resentful of the employee.)

[/quote]

[clean]

most often recover from infectious diseases. 

And those that do not are unlikely to pressure you for a recommendation! 
But if St. Peter calls for a reference, make it a great one, (just as you would want a great one yourself)

[Istiblennius]

SCR, I'm curious as to what your PI actually said... Is it possible they were asking your permission to allude to your health issues in a recommendation? I ask because I can see them wanting to give them the strongest possible recommendation (it's very encouraging that they did not simply decline to do a recommendation) that includes an explanation of why a PhD program took you more time to complete than might otherwise be expected. Of course it is up to you to disclose or not your health issues, and there may be other ways for your PI to address how you overcame some challenges, but I can see them somewhat clumsily opening the conversation about how you would like them to do that. I write a lot of recommendation letters and I always keep in mind that those letters are only as good as my professional reputation and that reputation suffers if I present a recommendation that I cannot stand behind or that puts a candidate in a position to be unsuccessful to the mutual detriment of them and the institution at which they wind up.

[apl68]

We've had a team of out-of-town HVAC technicians here all week working on our system.  So that we can finally have it working properly after a summer of shivering and bundling up whenever we're in our work spaces.  Today the techs checked out the system and pressurized it.  Next thing I knew, I went into our book sale room to check on something and saw water dripping from the ceiling and beginning to damage some of our shelves. 

Turns out the techs did their level best to install everything properly, but brand-new parts failed in multiple places.  Now they've got more on order, and will soon have to come back yet again.  Meanwhile they've again had to drain the system, and we still don't have the system working properly.

[smallcleanrat]

It seems to me that there are many situations where the consequences of the health issues are pertinent, even if the the health issues themselves cannot be divulged.

I mean, I think this is fair. I wasn't really faulting my PI so much as feeling kinda down about the fact that I wasn't able to be the type of student for whom he felt he could make an unqualified recommendation.

For SCR's situation, I would argue that SCR *is better than* someone who has the same accomplishments but did not have to deal with the health challenges. That SCR persevered through very challenging circumstances is commendable in and of itself. That SCR is close to completing the research required to earn a PhD is commendable. To do both, simultaneously, speaks volumes about SCR's dedication, commitment, and motivation to their field of study.

arcturus, thanks for saying this. I hope I might be able to find a potential employer can see some positive qualities like commitment or perseverance in my story.

My sense is that in at least some cases, the lack of explanation might be worse for the person. I had a TA whom I rehired several times, but who had a lot of health issues and so was occasionally absent. I had no problem giving this person a good reference for being smart, conscientious, and responsible, but a future employer's satisfaction in hiring would likely hinge on being aware of the challenges up front. (In other words, an employer with more information might say, "Sure, I can work with that", and everything would be fine, but if they were blindsided, they might be very unhappy and resentful of the employee.)

I've wondered about this too.

Having said this, I would caution people who have chronic conditions to disclose their concerns at the earliest possible time.  An interviewer cannot ask about these conditions, but the interviewee can choose to disclose information.  The choice to continue withhold this type of information can backfire if the employee needs or asks for accommodations in the future. 

I'm aware I'll likely have to disclose at some point, but how early exactly? Is the interview stage early enough, or should it even be as early as the application stage? Is the job offer stage too late? What if I am able to make significant progress in improving my health, but there is a non-zero chance of relapse? Do I still need to disclose that I had issues in the past?

SCR, I'm curious as to what your PI actually said... Is it possible they were asking your permission to allude to your health issues in a recommendation? I ask because I can see them wanting to give them the strongest possible recommendation (it's very encouraging that they did not simply decline to do a recommendation) that includes an explanation of why a PhD program took you more time to complete than might otherwise be expected. Of course it is up to you to disclose or not your health issues, and there may be other ways for your PI to address how you overcame some challenges, but I can see them somewhat clumsily opening the conversation about how you would like them to do that. I write a lot of recommendation letters and I always keep in mind that those letters are only as good as my professional reputation and that reputation suffers if I present a recommendation that I cannot stand behind or that puts a candidate in a position to be unsuccessful to the mutual detriment of them and the institution at which they wind up.

I don't think he was asking my permission about anything. I think he was just expressing uncertainty regarding how to balance supporting my application with being honest about expecting to have seen more progress if I had been "100% healthy." I wish I could have been.

I've kicked around the idea of offering to work full-time for part-time pay or even no pay (at least for a while) as a way to compensate for previous or continued shortcomings. Neither my PI nor my program director seemed to think this was a terrible idea. If it gets me a job that's better than stagnating in unemployment, but it does make me feel pretty low in worth compared to my peers.

[clean]

I'm aware I'll likely have to disclose at some point, but how early exactly? Is the interview stage early enough, or should it even be as early as the application stage?

At your university there are HR experts that have to deal with these sorts of things.  If you have contacted the university about your own disability and any accommodations, those would be the ones.  Ask them these questions and see what options and suggestions they may have.