The Venting Thread

[apl68]

I just realized that I've made the ghastly error of posting my vent here instead of on the venting thread!

I do apologize.  My earache must have made me even more out of it than I realized this morning.

Feeling better now.  These aches sometimes clear up as unexpectedly as they came.  Previous doctor visits have gotten me ear cleanings, a prescription that didn't seem to help much, and a trip to the dentist for an expensive mouth guard to keep me from grinding my teeth at night. Which was unpleasant and failed to fix the problem, so I gave up on it. 

The only thing that seems to help much is wearing a cap over my ears, and some time outside.  I felt better after running payroll-related errands outside late this morning.  Even though it was actually chilly and breezy out. 

[Parasaurolophus]

I just realized that I've made the ghastly error of posting my vent here instead of on the venting thread!

I do apologize.  My earache must have made me even more out of it than I realized this morning.

Feeling better now.  These aches sometimes clear up as unexpectedly as they came.  Previous doctor visits have gotten me ear cleanings, a prescription that didn't seem to help much, and a trip to the dentist for an expensive mouth guard to keep me from grinding my teeth at night. Which was unpleasant and failed to fix the problem, so I gave up on it. 

The only thing that seems to help much is wearing a cap over my ears, and some time outside.  I felt better after running payroll-related errands outside late this morning.  Even though it was actually chilly and breezy out. 

Easily fixed!

So sorry about the earache, though. That sounds unbearable.

[apl68]

Thanks, Para!

[Parasaurolophus]

In January, I was paid $600 less than I should have been. I emailed payroll in February (since we're paid at the end of the month) and never heard back. I have no idea about February because I got about $20k in back pay and they didn't break it down on the pay stub. I just got my March pay, and it's still smaller than it was in December 2023, though only about $70 smaller--except that I've since had a 5% raise, so...

Urgh. I have a feeling this is a second thing that will end up in mediation.

[Wahoo Redux]

Stub Hub, you utterly suck!!!

You literally could not have gotten those tickets more wrong.

It would appear you are one of those once-national corporations which are shuddering through structural changes in the wake of competition. 

Good.  I hope you die.

Hope you feel better, apl.

[Puget]

OK time for a major vent. I don't expect anyone to read all this, but it helps to type it.

I think it's going to be OK in the end but the new dean here (Mr. Bull in china shop) and has deanlet have spawned a shitshow of epic proportions.

Backstory: Last March, Dean Bull announces that from henceforward start up funds must be spend down at least 20% per year and will expire with tenure. This had never been the case before, so consternation and protest ensues. Chief financial officer and deanlet then both send "clarifying" emails assuring everyone that we are grandfathered in and our start ups will not expire until they are exhausted (CFO even makes a little joke about the funds being exhausted not the faculty members). OK, we all breathe easy.

Then today, we all get emails saying our start up funds "should have expired on x date" and are being closed immediately! Who is sending this heart attack inducing email? Why, the very deanlet who sent the "clarifying" email saying the opposite less than a year ago. I respond with great alarm, cc'ing my chair, reiterating that this was not the policy when I was hired and we were assured the change in policy would not apply to us.

Deanlet then asks if I have documentation of that assurance and who may have given it. I respond attaching his own previous email, which he has apparently absolutely no memory of. He then instructs the budget person not to close the account while he "looks into this".

The entire division of science is now up in arms and preparing for war. We have some big guns, and we're the only division that is net positive on revenue, so I think we will win, in the end, but I do not expect any apologies or admission of error. The best we will get is another "clarification".   

The dean and deanlet could not have done a better job of alienating and losing whatever good will remained from faculty if they tried. Just complete mismanagement and incompetence at every level. Truly boggling.

[clean]

Untenured faculty facing such trust breaking actions might be encouraged to reenter the job market.
Tenured faculty facing such a problem (if any) should be rallying for a no confidence vote to make Bull a steer! 

[Puget]

Untenured faculty facing such trust breaking actions might be encouraged to reenter the job market.
Tenured faculty facing such a problem (if any) should be rallying for a no confidence vote to make Bull a steer! 

As much as I'd love making Dean Bull a steer (love that joke, Clean!), I don't see that happening. Upper admin will do what it always does and circle the wagons around their own. But this and a thousand other ways they are trying to balance the books on the backs of faculty and while asking us to do more and more work with less, are inevitably going to do damage to the institution.

Chair pointed out today that those of us who have unspent start up funds have them precisely because we (a) have been successful in bringing in grants, and (b) have been prudent in budgeting our start ups for things we can't charge to the grants, including collecting pilot data for new grants. I don't think dean or deanlet (both of whom come from the humanities and have no experience with grants or more than minimal start up packages) have any idea how much $ the university could lose in the longer run in grant indirects as a result, not to mention the potential for well funded people to leave.

The division of science chairs are all meeting today to plot a unified response. Seeing how strongly and quickly our chairs and senior colleagues have our backs is the one bright spot in this fiasco.

[apl68]

Back in the postwar era our town had a master plan for development.  It was largely responsible for the shape the town takes today.  It included provisions to encourage letting trees stand to provide shade as woods were cleared to build new subdivisions.  The result was residential neighborhoods with abundant shade.

In recent years that heritage has been destroyed as homeowner after homeowner cuts down most or all of the trees in their front yards.  I guess the idea is to have a perfect yard of green grass and a few little specimen trees that bloom for a couple of weeks every year.  Homeowners on corner lots are especially prone to doing this--most of our street corners no longer have any shade. 

An exception to this rule that I pass by regularly was a corner lot with two handsome, healthy trees.  They've leafed out beautifully this spring.  This morning while walking by on my way to work I saw both of them being cut down.  The houses for several lots down on either side of the place had already eliminated their trees, so now there will be a gap of a block or more with no shade at all.

These trees were a heritage bequeathed by a previous generation that could have been preserved for another generation.  And now they've been destroyed.  In a town that already has eight months of summer heat a year, in a time of warming climates everywhere.  All I can say is "Why?"  Do we really hate our children and grandchildren that much that we want to leave them with nothing good to enjoy or use?

[mythbuster]

One reason for cutting down the trees are stupid insurance regulations. If the trees are bid enough to be a risk to falling on the house, your insurance may want them cut down. So stupid and sad.

[FishProf]

The weather was bad enough here to delay opening 2 hours, then delay it another 2 hours, but not enough (so far) to cancel the day.  SO I came in for a 10 am class (my usual time) and discovered I was 4 hours early for my eventual 1:30 lab.  Cue over half the class trying to get me to ok their not coming in b/c the roads are so bad (they aren't).

Decide for yourselves what you are comfortable with, and act accordingly.

[Puget]

An update: The division of science chairs sent a very strongly worded joint letter, and the dean has agreed to meet with them next week. Apparently the Division Head sent an even more strongly worded letter. I have not seen that one, but apparently she is really out for blood–the dean's, primarily, though deanlet is likely to get caught in the crossfire (deanlet seems like a generally nice guy who is just way out of his depth, especially when dealing with the sciences - he's a classicist and I think has no real understanding of things like indirect costs).

Untenured faculty facing such trust breaking actions might be encouraged to reenter the job market.
Tenured faculty facing such a problem (if any) should be rallying for a no confidence vote to make Bull a steer! 

As much as I'd love making Dean Bull a steer (love that joke, Clean!), I don't see that happening. Upper admin will do what it always does and circle the wagons around their own. But this and a thousand other ways they are trying to balance the books on the backs of faculty and while asking us to do more and more work with less, are inevitably going to do damage to the institution.

Chair pointed out today that those of us who have unspent start up funds have them precisely because we (a) have been successful in bringing in grants, and (b) have been prudent in budgeting our start ups for things we can't charge to the grants, including collecting pilot data for new grants. I don't think dean or deanlet (both of whom come from the humanities and have no experience with grants or more than minimal start up packages) have any idea how much $ the university could lose in the longer run in grant indirects as a result, not to mention the potential for well funded people to leave.

The division of science chairs are all meeting today to plot a unified response. Seeing how strongly and quickly our chairs and senior colleagues have our backs is the one bright spot in this fiasco.

[Hegemony]

These trees were a heritage bequeathed by a previous generation that could have been preserved for another generation.  And now they've been destroyed.  In a town that already has eight months of summer heat a year, in a time of warming climates everywhere.  All I can say is "Why?"  Do we really hate our children and grandchildren that much that we want to leave them with nothing good to enjoy or use?

That is both infuriating and tragic. The usual reason is that the homeowner doesn't want leaves on their lawn. Humans are so dim.

[AvidReader]

One reason for cutting down the trees are stupid insurance regulations. If the trees are bid enough to be a risk to falling on the house, your insurance may want them cut down. So stupid and sad.

Another reason is damage to the foundation. My last neighborhood, with some beautiful old trees along the street, had dozens of houses with damaged foundations and impassable plumbing because the tree roots had stretched back to the houses and broken through the pipes and concrete. I love big old trees as much as anyone, but when they're literally breaking one's house in half (and when one's sinks won't drain) there are not very many safe options.

AR.

[secundem_artem]

This is the 4th time you've asked for a refund on fees that were clearly identified as non-refundable on the website.  Maybe try taking NO for an answer.