Wednesday, May 27, 2009

(Un)limited Term: Same Work as Permanent State Employees, With Low Wages and Few Benefits

Here is an excerpt from the first part of an article I'm working on. I've omitted references to the name of the state agency that I'm talking about.

We’ve all heard the myth about the lush benefits of state employees, but limited term employees do the same work as permanent state employees, for less money and few benefits. In the economic downtown and the state budget crisis, limited term employees are the most vulnerable.

In 2005, my 60-year-old mother suddenly suffered a massive stroke that resulted in a four month hospital stay. Although I had worked full-time for the University for three years, I had no vacation or sick time. After emergency brain surgery, my mom remained in a Critical Care Unit for two weeks. Luckily, my department showed its generous support by taking up a collection, which helped make my mortgage payment while I took time off to be with my mom. I had no vacation or sick time because I was classified as a limited term employee (LTE).

According to a University of Wisconsin Press Release (http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12948 ), the purpose of LTE appointments is for campus units to carry out short term or seasonal work. LTEs are limited to no more than 1,043 hours, or six months of full-time work, per year. However, an individual may hold two LTE positions, resulting in ongoing full-time work.

It is commonly known within the realm of state employment that many individuals have been working in one or more LTE positions over long periods without becoming permanent, full time equivalency (FTE) employees, and without receiving the wages and benefits that accompany permanent state employment. In a recent survey of the University's 141 limited term employees, 76% of the 69 respondents indicated that they were limited term employees for a year or more, with 27% reporting six years or more as limited term employees. The average length of LTE employment was 11.6 years. Respondents were from a variety of University departments, including custodial, childcare, clerical, technology support, recreation, marketing, and more.

Those working two LTE positions, or full-time, are eligible for health insurance, dental insurance, and retirement savings. Those who are working only one LTE position, part-time, must pay half the premiums out of pocket. LTEs, no matter how many years they have worked for the state, get no vacation, sick time, personal or legal holidays, or any other benefits that permanent state employees receive. LTEs cannot participate in University committees or governance, nor are they eligible for grants, scholarships, or professional development funds, such as those available to permanent, University classified staff. LTEs have no job security, and under state law, they are prohibited from collective bargaining (http://slac.rso.wisc.edu/isthmus-june22-2001.html )

LTEs are generally paid less than permanent full time workers, even if they do the same work. Sixty five percent of survey respondents said they earned less than $20,000 per year before taxes, and 26% reported they are the sole provider for their families. In addition to low wages, 84% of survey respondents were female. And despite their low wages and few benefits, limited term workers are highly educated: 58% had a four year college degree or higher.

When I went through the confounding process of transitioning from a limited term employee to a permanent state employee (my job was advertised publicly and I had to interview and compete with others, including current state employees, for the position I had worked in for three years), I gained an almost $5 per hour wage increase for doing the same work. I also gained union representation, annual wage increases as negotiated by union contracts, sick time, vacation, paid holidays, personal days, and more...

Friday, May 22, 2009

My Problem with Science Education

And here is my fundamental problem with science education. As I’m reading my Biochemistry textbook (published in 2007) I notice that scientists who made (apparently) important discoveries are highlighted in the sidebar of the textbook, complete with their picture and a profile of their scientific accomplishments. It’s not long before I start to realize they’re all male, and this starts to bother me. So one afternoon I sit down and go through the entire book, scouring the sidebars for examples of female scientists. There are 14 scientists featured and only one female scientist, Marie Curie, who is labeled as a “pioneer in radioactivity.” This is the kind of thing that urks me. And it gets worse.

Let me reiterate that this textbook was published in 2007.

Chapter 22, on ribonucleotides, in its discussion of DNA and RNA, features Watson and Crick as the discoverers of DNA, for which they later shared a Nobel prize. There is, of course, no mention of chemist Rosalind Franklin, whose work was the basis for Watson and Crick’s discovery, which they never got her permission to use, nor did they ever give her any credit. Although this is a highly disputed and controversial topic (there are numerous books written about it, such as The Double Helix, by Watson and Crick), there is no mention of this in the textbook. Black and white. Definitively. Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Whatever.

And it’s not like there aren’t opportunities to feature female scientists. For example, there is an extended discussion of the polyamide Kevlar, used in place of steel in bulletproof vests, and how the uniform system of hydrogen bonds that holds the polymer chains together account for the “amazing” strength of Kevlar. There is a picture of the hydrogen bonding pattern, but no mention of the female chemist Stephanie Kwolek, who synthesized Kevlar while working as a chemist for DuPont.

Why does this matter? Because I’ve done research on the lack of women in science and engineering fields, and the research says that women need to see examples of positive, successful women in science and engineering. Textbooks like this inadvertently send the message that science is a male domain.