How to deal with hostility from administrators when starting a new postdoc position?

Question

I applied for a postdoc at a lab in the US as I really liked the work of that lab. I had the initial interview with the professor and then with the lab members. All went well and the professor welcomed me to join the lab.

When the administrative part started, things got very strange quickly:

1. The prof put me in touch with his lab manager, and then, casually mentioned that the university has a covid-related hiring freeze...but that it might be OK since I have a scholarship/bring my own money (which I do). It was however only then that I learned about the hiring freeze.

2. The lab manager (quite unfriendly) told me that given that I have my own funding I will be only considered a "visiting postdoc" and would not receive benefits. When I asked about more details, she told me to "google".

3. I then got invited to a zoom meeting to clarify some other points about a document I had handed to admin. First of all the mail suggested that it was me, prof and one admin person. Against my expectations 6 or 7 people joined and it felt like a cross-examination. In addition, the meeting turned out to not be about said document at all (they even said that that document was fine??). First, they told me that my scholarship can't be below their minimal level. Then they told me that I would not be allowed to collaborate with another college during this time. Then they asked all kinds of further questions like: If you are really an engineer, why was the department you were at before the department of chemistry? When I said that yes I was an engineer, the admin person said "OK I will have to google to check if this chemistry department really hires engineers" - i.e. she made it clear that they don't believe me....?

4. I asked them about the terms and conditions for "visiting postdocs", they said there are none (???). That is, I have no clue about what rights, benefits etc. I would have when joining the lab.

The prof seemed to side with admin, though he told me to call him after this cross-examination-style meeting. There he said that it is strange for him as well that admin does not allow for collabs (and he would not mind if I would collab but we should keep it under wraps) and mentioned that he would make up for it if my salary should be below the minimum. But, although he had previously mentioned that he would make sure that I would not be just a "visiting postdoc", he now seemed to have changed his mind.

This entire process was so hostile, I still can't believe it. I invested a lot of energy trying to get this job, but then having to fully commit without being considered a full employe..? I feel like the prof was not fully transparent.. though I really like the work of his lab and it could be great for my career.

And by the way, the place I was before was Stanford, so I am not coming from some (supposedly) random university.

Is this usual behavior, and how could I deal with this most constructively?

Answer 1

Is this usual behavior

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: I have heard many stories of bad workplaces, both in academia and beyond. Even at good workplaces one occasionally encounters weird, rude, and borderline exploitative practices and staff/employer attitudes. So perhaps it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s not usual. But by and large, the situation that you describe does not sound good or normal. Self-respecting, respectable US institutions will generally go to great lengths to make their postdocs feel welcome, and will have an orderly, transparent hiring and onboarding process, clear policies, and staff that will communicate those policies to you upon request (even if not always in the most friendly or efficient manner). That’s quite a contrast with what you are describing.

and how could I deal with this most constructively?

Since you bring your own scholarship and generally sound like you are an attractive hire (and someone who has the self-confidence to not be shy about being one) I would guess that you have a fair amount of leverage in this situation, and will assume in this answer that that is the case - specifically, that you have a reasonable likelihood of finding alternate employment quickly if the current offer does not pan out. You need to put that leverage to use. The key is to make the professor/mentor-to-be aware that there is a minimum level of treatment that you are expecting from him and his department, and that should he fail to offer you credible assurance that you will be receiving that minimum, you have other options and will go elsewhere.

To put it bluntly (although in your communication with the professor you will want to be less blunt), you need to make a credible threat about withdrawing your acceptance of the offer to join the professor’s lab, assuming you’ve already accepted, or about not accepting if you haven’t yet.

In preparation for bringing this up, there are two crucial pieces of information you will need to know:

1. What are your options? Do you have other places you could quickly arrange to give you offers? Given that you have your own scholarship, I am hoping the answer is yes. But do your homework and explore this at least informally, by sending out feeler emails etc.

2. What are your minimum expectations from the current professor and his lab? That’s a personal question you’ll have to ask yourself and answer - it may include things like health benefits, a written contract or reference to a set of institutional policies governing your type of position, a conversion of the “visiting postdoc” to a title more commensurate with your qualifications, or similar things.

Once you know the answer to the above questions, ask to have a video meeting with the professor and politely bring up your concerns. Be tactful, and make sure to mention all the positive things that make you want to join his lab rather than someone else’s, but also make it clear to him that your concerns are serious enough that you can and likely will withdraw your agreement to join his lab if he does not take them seriously.

I mentioned the threat to bail out needs to be credible. That means it would be good to mention any specific facts at your disposal to make it seem like you have the ability to act on the threat (again, I am using blunt language - I trust that you can phrase it more diplomatically in the actual conversation). For example, you can mention names of specific places where you have a pending offer or promise of one, or at least adopt an attitude that signals your confidence that you can get another offer easily because you have your own funding.

Finally, part of making the threat credible is that you need to be mentally willing to act on it in the scenario where the conditions you are setting are not met. If you think you’re not willing, the approach I am proposing may not be right for you.

Good luck! I hope things work out. But cover your bases and be prepared for the possibility they may not. Honestly, this behavior does not sound normal, and should not (in an ideal world at least) be an acceptable way to treat people.

Answer 2

I'm not sure why you are considering this "offer". You've given a lot of downsides that could easily lead to future pain and suffering. But other than a weak endorsement in your first paragraph, you haven't really given any positive aspects to this position.

If you have any other offer(s) with better conditions, you should probably consider them first. If it is this or nothing at all, then be very wary if you take it. The professor in question can probably help somewhat.

I'll note that some of the restrictions given by the administration are probably the result of laws that must be followed, since the position is not a standard one. If you aren't a regular employee, then you don't have the protections (or requirements) that regular employees have.

Answer 3

Currently, I am in a similar situation (working since 12 months as a postdoc in the U.S. with a scholarship that covers 24 months from the "NIH" of my home country). Similar to what you described, I came expecting to be a regular postdoc based on the prior communication with the PI.

Personal situation: Upon my arrival, I quickly realized that my PI does not support me or project in any relevant manner and that I am essentially a visiting scholar working on a line of research that is as of today not really of interest to my PI. In the beginning, I was super motivated and provided weekly detailed “Objectives and Key Results” (OKRs) during our meetings. I would recommend you to give it at least a try. Nevertheless, over time I had to somewhat realize that the meetings should be kept as slender as possible, given that the technical/research feedback is limited either way. I decided to stay and I do not regret it too much. The PI is overall a supportive and respectful leader. While I have to apply for computing resources (applying to Google Cloud credits) and organize data (i.e., setting up MTAs with other institutions) myself, the PI allows me to do so freely. Nevertheless, I keep him always in the loop. I am still thightly conntected to institutions in my home country - i.e., getting data is not a significant bottleneck for me. The institution provides a strong halo effect and is an interesting place to be for me, irrespective of my output.

Thus, the following factors are in my view important to consider:

1. Do you expect your PI to be supportive even if you work somewhat like an independent collaborator on your own projects?

2. Is it possible to obtain data in chemistry independently or are you very dependent on the group?

3. Is the institution/environment exciting enough to justify some degree of a diminished research output?

If the answer to all 3 questions above is not "yes", I would recommend to leave. While you may want to try to talk it through with your supervisor, do not expect that you will be able to change too much about the supervision style.

Answer 4

I want to warn you about a red flag that I see, which has come up in two parts of your question:

The lab manager (quite unfriendly) told me that given that I have my own funding I will be only considered a "visiting postdoc" and would not receive benefits. When I asked about more details, she told me to "google".

and:

I asked them about the terms and conditions for "visiting postdocs", they said there are none (???). That is, I have no clue about what rights, benefits etc. I would have when joining the lab.

A "visiting" researcher is usually someone who works elsewhere and is visiting. This usually means that your employer (which is different from the place where you're "visiting") is the one that has an employment contract, which outlines all the things that you mentioned: rights, benefits, terms & conditions, etc., and the place you're "visiting" may have some much smaller-scale agreement with you or your primary institution, outlining the terms of your "visit", usually allowing them to have reduced responsibilities and liabilities compared to if you were a regular employee.

Unfortunately, some universities have started to give the title of "visiting" researcher, to people that are working exclusively at the university, which can be an extremely shady way of binning you into a category that is neither faculty nor staff nor student, meaning that you are not represented by the faculty association, you are not represented by the staff association, and you're not represented by the student union, and therefore have zero support and almost zero rights.

Let's look for a second at the Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Waterloo and its Faculty Association:

"In all matters under this Article, a Member has the right to seek advice from the Association and to be accompanied by an academic colleague for advice and support (including, if necessary, aid in presenting the Member's position) during any meetings attended to discuss such matters."

Therefore, if a professor is called into a surprise meeting with 7 people (like what happened to you) from the university administration, the faculty association will provide an academic colleague (e.g. another professor) to join them as a witness and support-person for the meeting, if the professor wishes. The same is true of people represented by the Staff Association, or the Student Union, but as a "visiting" researcher, which union or vocational association will represent you? It would be the labor union of your employer (the company or university that sent you to "visit" this university!), but wait a minute: You don't have one!

Also, look at section 9 which outlines a process by which an employee represented by the Faculty Association (e.g. a professor) can make an internal complaint if something goes wrong. The Staff Association will have something similar, as does the Student Union, but they have gone out of their way to point out that "visiting" positions are not covered:

What happens if you get harassed or abused or the university does not follow their own policies? There might be no internal process available to you for making a complaint, because you're "only" and visiting researcher --- How do I know this? Because it happened to me when I was a "visiting" researcher at the University of Waterloo, which is one of the top universities in Canada (this can happen anywhere, and the opening to your accepted answer: "I have heard many stories of bad workplaces, both in academia and beyond. Even at good workplaces one occasionally encounters weird, rude, and borderline exploitative practices and staff/employer attitudes" is a bit of a polite way of saying what goes on).

Therefore, you were very smart to ask those questions about the nature of a "visiting" position.

Since you said many times that you have a fellowship that will be paying your salary, I would recommend to look at the rules that they have for "host" institutions like this university which you are currently considering. As a postdoctoral fellow, I held a Banting Fellowship at McMaster University and they had certain guidelines for host institutions (I have put bold-font emphasis on the specific aspects about which you expressed concern):

From the outset of the application process, applicants and host institutions should discuss:

• the details of the fellowship appointment any benefits offered to the Fellow any financial obligations associated with the appointment (union dues, insurance premiums, etc.)
• the availability of any research and/or other support
• the rights and responsibilities of postdoctoral fellows
• any other institution-specific policies that might apply to the Banting Fellow any established research-related

Summary: If you go into a "visiting" position (usually not a "real" employee) and you don't have a "primary" institution that is bound by standard employment laws, be careful. Let me quote Buffy's answer: "If you aren't a regular employee, then you don't have the protections (or requirements) that regular employees have." Please be careful and take care of yourself.

Answer 5

While a Postdoc is a training position, you're also something of a "hired gun". In a normal situation, the PI needs something done, and hires a postdoc to do it. Bringing your own money to the position isn't very typical.

Sometimes profs have absolutely no awareness of the red tape required to bring in a postdoc, or any employee, and assume because they made arrangements to bring someone in, somehow magically, the admins can make that happen.

In this case, it seems that the University cannot actually do any "real" hiring because of a hiring freeze, and they are trying to come up with a creative way to bring you in. All indications are that they can't make an arrangement to actually make you an employee of the university, and you would be walking into some nebulous situation. This is good for you if you have no better options, but bad for you if you need a job! There will be ALL SORTS of ramifications. For example, if you are in the US, you will likely be on the hook for the 7.5% FICA tax normally paid by the employer. This is called a self employment tax, and would be an immediate 7.5% pay cut. You may or may not have health insurance. You will have very little in the way of job protection.

You should not be told to "google" anything. This is your life, and you are entering a position. At the very least, you are entitled to know all the details, without confusion. The only place you should have to look is in their employee handbook or your contract.

If this weren't pandemic times, I'd tell you to run away, but I suspect many universities have hiring freezes right now.

At the very least, I would ask them two questions: Will you be an employee of the university? and Can I see my benefits package in writing?

Answer 6

Please contact Human Resources, and the International Student Services of the institution. Now, the latter might not give specific information on postdocs but they usually do a lot of related paperwork and in my opinion they are the most knowledge people in a university about these matters. The benefits can be learned through HR. It seems to me that they are taking your scholarship granted. The benefits are usually included for postdocs that are "hired" but scholarship holders/fellows are not necessarily employees, so I think they are putting you in this category. The way they brush off your questions would make me think twice to be honest, but been there done that, it seems you are further in the process and don't want to consider other options. There is also a lot of uncertainty around visas, hiring etc. but they should at least be transparent about it.