Server Bug Fix: Was there a European country that held a referendum about adopting English in universities?

Original Source Link

I vaguely remember that there was a European country (not the UK or Ireland) that held a referendum about adopting English as the primary language of instruction in universities. The referendum failed. I seem to remember that it was the Netherlands in the 1970s, but I might be mistaken.

Googling, I am unable to find anything. So hopefully someone here can tell me if any such referendum ever took place or if I’m imagining things.

I ignored the UK and Ireland in my search, and I found absolutely nothing trying to cover the period from 1945 to approx. 2000 so I’m leaning towards, ‘No, there never was a referendum on adopting English in the higher education sector’.


There were two referendums on higher education/research sector in Switzerland in the 1970’s: one in 1973 on promoting research and one in 1978 promoting research and universities though their content is not listed. I did not check 1945 to 1969 nor 1981 onwards for Switzerland because this page says their tertiary education is primarily in German, French, or Italian.

Hungary had a referendum on higher education funding in 2008 which was one of the very few mentions of the higher education sector in post-war European direct democracy overall.

The Netherlands did not have such a referendum as they did not have any referendums between 1805 and 2005.

This is also not brought out in the “List of referendums” that I went through on WP between 1970 and 1980, nor on the national “Lists of Elections & Referendums” by country on WP (country-by-country).

Further, looking at this article on higher education in English none of the European countries are listed as having all higher education courses in English. This leads me to suspect this may have only been a plan or a bill of some other kind—but there’s still no evidence to point to where it could have taken place.

Perhaps the closest (by a very loose definition) I found to this was a presidential order in Algeria from 2019 where French was replaced with English in the higher education sector.

Netherlands
seems to be the only possibility. However this Wikipedia article does not mention a referendum.

Most university master’s degrees are in English, and an increasing number of bachelor’s degrees are as well,[6] and even the first degrees of community college given in English have made their way into existence. In addition, many degrees that are taught in Dutch use English-language materials (such as books) and names.

Tagged : / /

Server Bug Fix: How to deal with systematic rigging of academic position job postings?

Original Source Link

In a discussion with some of my close friends in other academic institutes, we noticed the common experience* in which it seems that well over 80% of the advertised job postings for permanent or tenure track positions at the departments close to our working environment where we are working are rigged or fixed. It seems that in Europe there are many people facing similar problems [1,2].

In this context “rigged” is meant to describe that many people at the involved institution already know who will get the position when or even before the position is publicly advertised. And with “knowing” it’s meant that if it would be possible to place bets on the outcome, the people familiar with the situation (but not in the selection commission) would place all-in bets for the same person without any regard of the other candidates who applied.

In some cases the job description was even tuned to match the CV of particular candidates. And sometimes, it’s already known years ahead that a particular person will get that position. In some cases those persons are also well qualified for the job, but in many cases external candidates with better credentials were not objectively evaluated. The other candidates were invited for interviews, and talks, giving sample lectures, spending time energy and financial resources for their applications and traveling.

This practice seems unethical, but it seems so common that it seems to be an accepted norm. When I spoke with a professor about this, he thought it was perfectly normal to give the job to people who you know well, instead of someone who might seem to be qualified better but who you do not know well. From a risk management point of view he might be right. But to me the situation seems similar to people in the mafia, those people who are part of it do not consider it as a mafia, and they do not consider the activities to be unethical, they even consider it beneficial for the society.

*EDIT: Based on the answers in a similar question on a particular instance [3], it seems that many people are OK, with that this is how the things go, it has become part of academic culture.

But some aspects of the question stay open:

  • How to deal with it in the search for a permanent faculty position?
  • How to find those job adverts which are really open?
  • How to deal with this if you are an insider and are observing this behavior on a regular basis?

I gave department and campus tours to applicants, of who i knew they
had no chance, even if their credentials were better than that of some
of the professors in the selection commission.

  • Should i have told them, that the whole vacancy and invitation for the interview was a charade?
  • If one notices such rigged position job advertisements in
    its environment, should one report it somewhere? Where could such conduct be reported?

Proof is not so much of an issue: We could easily set up a list of names and positions posting them on the web before the job was advertised get a time stamp. And confront some institute who cares with the statistics of hiring behavior.

But the most important central question is:

What could be changed in the hiring procedures or rules to mitigate rigged job postings?

*These experiences are based on 7 people from various institutions in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain, France) during the last 10 years.

EDIT: The associated question is definitely similar, but i think there are some fundamental differences.

  1. That question was about a single particular case this question is about systematic ongoing behavior with which I and my friends and many others [1,2] are dealing on a daily basis.
  2. That question asks about a solution for a particular insider and potential whistleblower only. This question asks for solutions for insiders and outsiders (applicants).

Further more considering some of the answers on the other question which were relevant to the other case i changed the question a bit. How to solve this problem in the big picture.

  1. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Job-Hunts-From-Hell-/236635
  2. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20191122070839500
  3. I know that there is a preselected candidate for a position to be filled at my department. What should I do?

I have seen this in situations where giving tenure track positions was not possible either because that institution was not available or because the financial situation of the department was too uncertain. Rigged processes for permanent jobs for postdocs who had proved themselves is than a way to get as close as possible to a tenure track position in that situation. That is imperfect, but the problem is the absence of the possibility to offer tenure track positions.

That leaves the question of why a department might want to give a tenured position via tenure track position rather than a simple application. In some countries it is extremely hard (impossible) to get rid of a person with tenure. So giving tenure to someone based on a letter, an interview, and some recommendations is much riskier than hiring someone who you already know. Your question assumed that it is clear that someone is better, but in my experience that has never been the case. Often it is clear that someone is not suitable, but that leaves many candidates. The impressions I got during the application process are very often wrong: those who I thought would be great turned out to be problematic, while those about whom I had doubts turned out to be great. In a tenure track process you can find that out before you give someone tenure.

There are countries where institutions are forced, by law, to advertise positions before hiring someone. I think the idea behind such laws is that this will ensure they get the best person for the job plus it helps in fighting corruption by making everything more transparent.

So when the institution wants to hire a specific individual, independently of the reasons, it sees itself forced to advertise said position to obey the law. To deter applicants other than the one person they want to hire, this position can be tailored to the person’s strengths and the evaluation metrics adjusted to ensure there is a high chance no one else will take the place.

While this is in a sense “rigged” it is the only way some institutions have to hire specific people without breaking the law. And there are legitimate cases for such behavior.

For example, say you have someone who worked for 2 years in a project. The 2-year contract ends and you realize you need 4 or 6 more months to finish it. In this case, it makes sense to re-hire the same person. However, the law prevents you from doing so directly. What do you do? You go around the law by opening a new position and tweaking the position to said person. Is it rigged? Yes. But you can easily argue this person is the best one for the job, after all the individual already has 2 years of experience in the project in question.

This is not the same as hiring faculty, but even in those cases, it’s not surprising a hiring committee prefers the devil they know.

I am going to respond to a part of the premise of the question, highlighted by the following statements from the question and comments:

in many cases external candidates with better credentials were not objectively evaluated

This practice seems unethical

In my view the procedure should be to search for the best available candidate

These statements imply that the eventual choice falls on someone who doesn’t have the best qualifications and who was taken from a closed pool of candidates that “outsiders” could not enter.

An issue that I see is that often enough, who is or is not the “best candidate” in academia can best be determined by long-term endeavours such as conducting a project together with the candidate that takes at least a couple of months, or repeatedly working with them on various projects throughout the years.1 It seems that it is at this stage where indeed anyone can enter the race (e.g. by establishing contact at conferences or other meetings etc.).

Naturally, this does not match up well with the formal requirement of handling such a selection like a regular job offer followed by inviting applicants. The (as you correctly recognized, technically very dissatisfactory) solution is to run the selection process based on a long-term evaluation of candidates as described above while fulfilling the formal requirements by conducting what could be dubbed “job offer theatre”.

As already stated, this is quite suboptimal. There is considerable potential for abuse and where no abuse happens, a candidate still needs to know how the process works to have a chance in the first place. (I think it is noteworthy that a considerable number of posts on this site about how to find such positions point out how important it is to simply get in touch with people from the department – because that is, generally, how any external candidate could learn about how to get into the department.)

I am not really sure about a solution; maybe the actual hiring process (i.e. including the evaluation that might span multiple years) could be formalized in some way – though of course, this would create quite some bureaucratic overhead and might also not be very practical given that such an “evaluation” may begin well before the candidate first utters (or even conceives) the wish to actually become a candidate.

Right now, as an attempt to answer the titular question directly:

How does one deal with rigged academic position job postings?

By understanding the difference between the formally required and the “actual” hiring process, and by, first and foremost, entering the latter. Get in touch with departments you would like to work with, show them your expertise during repeated encounters, contacts, or mutually conducted work, and thereby get on the path of being hired into your own personalized “rigged job posting”.


EDIT: Based on various remarks, such as:

It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality.

the OP’s own answer

you claim that if A is perceived as a “good fit to the department” then it is advisable to take A. The problem is that (a) by that you exclude all other globally stronger on paper candidates.

Dilworth’s comment

there seems to be some confusion about what is the assumed goal of evaluating candidates. The way I know hiring decisions to work (and that, personally, I think also makes most sense) is that they always combine several factors that need to be kept in a certain balance:

  • Are the professional skills of the candidate sufficient? These can be objectively tested and shown on a global scope. The candidate’s formal education, prior work experience, and handling of concrete sample problems are just some of various ways to accurately determine these.
  • Is the candidate a good fit in the intended context? This one is much harder to determine, short of having already worked with the candidate before for extended amounts of time. The answer to this question may vary from one department to the next, as each environment, project, etc. is different, yet it is also crucial to know.
  • How accurate are the answers to the above two points? Both of the above points come with a degree of uncertainty. Keeping that uncertainty low is, of course, also important. Speaking in a simplified manner, a candidate who seems to be able to apply 90% of the expected skills in the department but turns out to apply only 70% is worth less than a candidate who is definitely known to apply 80% of the expected skills in that department.

Thus, the decision who is the strongest candidate is a combination of all of these factors. Especially in highly individual jobs as often found in academia (the higher in the hierarchy you look, it is less about fulfilling pre-defined duties and more about being able to develop and maintain one’s own goals and positions), in my opinion an accurate impression of how that works out for any particular candidate in any particular context can only be gathered by gradually collaborating with and integrating them, rather than in a “normal” hiring process with a few superficial snapshot impressions such as a CV, interviews, sample lectures, etc.


1: Arguably, the longer I work in industry and have to do with (sometimes helping select, sometimes just training) new hires, I am getting the impression that quite the same applies there. Picking the seemingly best candidate based on a CV, work samples, and personal impressions from an interview within the course of a few weeks is simply not a reliable method to identify suitable (let alone the best) candidates, compared to hiring people who you’ve been in touch with for years.

Indeed, I believe you are mostly correct in your arguments. In my opinion, as someone with quite a rich experience in academia, rigging or tailoring job postings, as is done a lot in Europe at least, is indeed unethical, and akin in some sense at least to a mafia mentality. There are of course some advantages to recruiting someone you already know, but the disadvantages first severely outweigh the advantages, and furthermore usually only apply to those few persons that are rigging the job posting. In most cases the one who devises these rigged positions is a “career-scientist” who attempts to recruit a colleague to add to his/her group junior assistants, or to add to his/her network of close colleagues within the department.

Rigging a job posting thus serves to:

1) Block the development of new groups and areas in the department.

2) Strengthen an already existing group, with someone who does not strengthen substantively the group, rather is more a junior faculty.

3) Promote the mostly narrow political-agenda of a group leader in the department.

Departments that usually rig positions after some time become non-competitive and usually are left behind, in comparison to their competitors (this is one reason in my opinion that European universities are on average less successful than US ones, in which rigging is less common; though of course there is more to it than that).


Following comments and previous discussions, I now explain why consistent rigging of job postings leads to a gradual decrease in quality and eventually a highly provincial department/cohort of academics. Let us consider the following highly simplified scenarios:

1) A department of “ranking 5” (out of 10) with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on rigged job postings. Since no new faculty brings new expertise the department only maintains or expands in the areas it is already active in.

Outcome: the department only gets people it already knows. It doesn’t go much down then in ranking. But it also doesn’t go up: still 4 groups, doing the same research. Scholars of “rank 5” bring their colleagues who are also “of rank about 5”. New areas are completely lost. Stagnation, and eventual provincialism. No new connection to different research groups and different countries.

2) A department of “ranking 5” with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on international and unbiased recruitment process. People are hired based on reference letters, CV, publications, tangible achievements, and some strategic considerations (i.e., areas to invest in).

Outcome: Although one hire was found to be a problematic colleague who then quit after three years, all other four members are dynamic, international-level scholars, that bring fresh ideas to the department. New areas and new connection emerge. The four new hires are also of “rank 6 and even 7”. The department then increased its average “ranking”, its international connections, and the scope of areas it covers.

Resolve that if you ever find yourself in a position to make (or contribute to making) hiring decisions, you will act fairly. If enough of us do this, some of us may eventually be in a position to effect change for the better.

Based on many of the responses it seems that this “rigged” faculty job postings are quite accepted in the academic community. And not really seen as something unethical. It is a way to deal with the formal requirements of “the system”. And the formal requirements are a way to make the selection process look fair and objective.

A common argument is that one needs to know the person very well in order to appoint him for an important positions. How to compare an assessment of a CV, some papers and an interview with some of the candidates with years of collaboration experience with another candidate? If you have way more information about candidate B, how could you justify choosing another candidate? It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality. “It is extremely difficult to get rid of some one with tenure”. Another point mentioned is the lack of other alternatives to give tenure track or other permanent positions to those locally well known. Apparently often the real recruitment phase starts (and ends) before the formal job position opens.

Once you are hired in a similar way you get used to it, if it happens every where it becomes normal.

So what to do?

  • If one writes a rigged job advert, make it clear that it is tailored to a very particular person. (maybe one can agree on some code words?)
  • If you have to give a tour or have a conversation with one of the candidates who have no chance, whistle or hum the “the Entertainer theme (from The Sting, Scott Joplin), or offer them the choice between a red and a blue drink.
  • If you are in a department where this frequently happens, don’t freak out, it seems to happen a lot. If you feel that they will rig a job for you to, stay and get assimilated. Otherwise network and collaborate with other clans and try to get yourself in a good position for the next rigged job posting there.
  • If you want to report it, forget it. Nobody with authority or power against it really cares and many even support it. You can write a blog or a post on academia.stack exchange. The answers could be disappointing, but you will learn the truth.

What could be changed in the hiring procedures or rules to mitigate rigged job postings?
The first thing is that it requires to chance the view of those who think that this is ethical and acceptable, and the only way to circumvent the problems of the system. I hold it for impossible, and i fear they are in the majority. Resistance seems futile, and even counter productive. If you are known to be against such practices, you will not be invited for selection commissions, you will be considered as dangerous for other faculty members. These are things difficult to find out in a job interview, or CV, or by reading your papers. This kind of trust needs to be based on long term experience and close relations. So I recommend: do not try to change it, try to find a place where this is uncommon and exceptional, or adapt.

But hypothetically, the procedures could be changed to a more competition like structure. Quantifiable hiring criteria using a fixed limited “equal” amount of information per applicant could publicly stated in advance. With the possibility of public comments. An external commission evaluates the criteria, to see if they favor a specific applicant in a way not relevant for the position. The commission report is and remains public. People apply and another commission evaluates the candidates according the the specified criteria. The report with ratings, votes and conclusions of the individual commission members is and remains publicly available. Its imperfect but it seems more transparent, than how things currently go.

But those who want to circumvent the system will find ways around it, and jobs will keep being rigged. And probably in ways more difficult to spot. The more transparent the procedures, the more darkness is required to conceal the true objectives of those with power and objectives against the system. So in the end things will probably even get worse.
Italy is one of the countries with public commission decision reports, but i know from personal experience that it did not solve the problem.

Therefore, maybe one must be thankful to know, and be warned that many faculty jobs are rigged. And try to find constructive ways to deal with it. One way is to keep it silent, and have the advantage of being warned w.r.t. the other poor sheep candidates who really still think they have a chance.

Also beware for the next level: maybe i am paranoid but the processes between awarding funding/grants (selecting reviewers, selection committees) and faculty hiring are not that different. Similar processes, similar people there might be a pattern there. It would even be inconsistent if the same arguments: “We know candidate A, better than B and C so we minimize risk by choosing A”, are not applied there. In Germany there are elections for the subject committees of the national funding agency “DFG-Fachkollegienwahl” and of it is difficult to imagine that people do not vote for their friends, and that their friends do them favors back.

Note 1: I did not intend to answer my own question in advance, but the answers and feedback (also that of the related questions) gave me new perspectives summarized here. Thanks for all the other answers and discussions in the comments.
Note 2: On request i could place references to some of the statements from other answers and quotes from other users, but i thought it was more polite not to do so.

I’ve seen* different kinds of rigged hiring processes which IMHO ask for different actions:

  • nepotism is IMHO the most problematic form. By definition (hiring someone because of the relation hiring Boss (I’ll use Boss for the powerful one in the hiring committee) and Favorite rather than because of scientific achievements or job-related soft skills) this is dangerous for academic and general work quality.
    Hardly anyone cares about spotting nepotism if the Favorite is actually a good fit for the job.

    • So nepotism is spotted as problematic when Favorite doesn’t fit that well. Either because their research isn’t that good or because they don’t get along/cooperate well with the other members of the group or department.

    • Nevertheless, Boss typically thinks they prefer Favorite based on objective criteria. For hiring local people/keeping jobs for their own staff rather than hiring newcomers, this may be related to a positive feedback loop: Boss supervises Favorite. Favorite is taught what research Boss does and how. After a while, Boss finds Favorite doing exactly the research they’d like to see. In addition, there’s the important criterion that the candidate should work well in the department. Boss finds that Favorite works very smoothly with them.

    Of course, the usual rules against academic inbreeding counteract this if the relationship is internal as in the example. But a very similar problem may be encountered with hiring Boss’ external Favorite.

    What to do? If the nepotism comes along with Boss being convinced that they are objectively right it is IMHO very difficult to stop as long as Boss stays boss. Realistically, only someone who is highly esteemed by Boss and who perceives the hiring outcome as problematic has a chance to make Boss aware of the trouble.

    For everyone else, IMHO the only feasible consequence is to think carefully whether/how long they want to stay in such a department/group: working atmosphere is likely already quite bad, and there is the risk that the fishy smell of being in a group that a) a does bad research and/or b) hires bad people (nepotism) sticks to them.

  • Hiring rigged in favor of someone found by a scouting process.
    Here we actually have a proper hiring process looking for the best or at least a very good candidate – but the visible administrative hiring process happens afterwards. The industry equivalent would be to have a job opening announced at the local unemployment agency as required by law and at the same time employ a headhunter.

    One reason to do this is that the visible administrative process cannot start before all grant contracts are signed – but then someone must be hired immediately. A 2nd related reason is to avoid the risk that noone applies who is really suitable for the job, either leaving the position open (project cannot start) or filled with someone who is not that suitable for the job.
    Related: we do have a probationary period of typically 6 months here that allows cancellation of an employment contract by either side without explanation. But again, doing so would mess up any project schedule (or the lecture plan) – so this is something a department is afraid of.

    This type of rigging comes at varying levels of unfairness to other candidates. In general, the hiring committee is still looking forward to hire Unicorn who appears out of the blue raterh than Favorite. However, the more preliminary negotiations have taken place with the Favorite candidate and the more promises have been made, the higher the hurdle Unicorn must overcome = the better Unicorn must be than Favorite in order to get the job. On the other hand, such a situaton is comparably easy to spot for other applicants: the job offer then looks as if they had forgotten to state required shoe size and eye color.

    What to do? When writing proposals, work that there is a realistic amount of time for the official hiring process. Do not make promises you can only keep by rigging the official hiring process against other good candidates when scouting.
    I do think that scouting is needed, but at the same time, allowing scouting procedures to replace the public announcement will facilitate nepotism :-(.
    Maybe allowing a certain amount of jokers/wild cards could give a good balance? After all, if a department (Boss) is determined to go bad, academic freedom allows them to do so.

  • Related is postdoc Favorite who wrote the proposal together with Boss (“You can join my group if you get a grant that pays you”).

    Here the ethics are IMHO not so clear cut and need to be discussed in the academic community: what is a fair chance for some who wrote the proposal to actually get that job? Should it be treated like any other unrigged job advertisement – after all having written the proposal will give them a headstart, or should the writer have an “option” to the job? Anything in between?

  • Someone getting a follow-up contract has a similar headstart: they objectively won’t need as much time to get started as an external candidate. The hiring process may still be further rigged in their favor.

    In my experience, administrative or legal requirement are sometime followed as required, but the perception is that the rigging counteracts unfair/unethical consequences of legislation (we have a saying “Gut gemeint ist das Gegenteil von gut gemacht” – quite literally “Well-intentioned is the opposite of well done”). One example is that legislation that was intended to protect emplyoees has the practical result that there are few things that administration fears as much as hiring someone on a permanent position, and at the same time there are strong requirements with fixed term contracts (violating them can turn the contract into a permanent one – nightmare for administration). The practical consequence is that Boss cannot offer permanent positions to Favorite who objectively deserves the position. So Boss/the committee does the next best thing they can do: making everyone jump through the loops of a rigged hiring procedure for a job that is promised to Favorite as a makeshift permanent position.

    What to do? This is a general political issue. And while many agree that the situation is bad as it is, I don’t see anything approaching a majority agreement on what and how changes should be implemented.

  • “Rigging” in favor of internal candidates may be required by law: e.g. the staff council can demand that positions are first offered internally. In other situations, an external announcement may be required (by law, funding agency, administration, you name it): I’m quite sure any combination of weird administrative requirements may kick in. Or administration thinks they may kick in and asks the hiring committee to err on the safe side in the formal procedure.

  • Rigging against candidates (to be done…)


Conflict lines and political questions:

  • Academic freedom attracting despots? – relation to nepotism. (Humboldt and mafia)
  • Fair to applicants ./. scouting for and getting the best candidate
  • Labor laws: job safety ./. difficulty to get hired, fixed term ./. permanent contract regulation.
  • Administration minimizing risk ./. department wanting someone good

* In order to not blow up the answer even more, I’ll write in indicative what is actually not more than what I believe to be true. Conjunctive or similarly cautious wording would actually be more appropriate. All this is my personal wold view – for few of the things I describe I have hard evidence, not to speak of a proof that I could show.

I will just give direct answers to each of your questions

How to deal with it in the search for a permanent faculty position?

Your question demonstrates that you have quite an accurate understanding of what is going on, and your comments on people’s answers indicate that you have read the multitude of answers given here, which all say similar things. You now know how hiring is viewed and that you alone will not be able to change this overnight. So here is how I would advise you to deal with it:

  • It’s okay to complain about the process here with your anonymous username, but try not to be too vocal in real-life about everything you’ve written here, especially how you think they are behaving like a “mafia”. They will not appreciate being compared to a mafia or being call “corrupt” or accusd of “rigging” anything, and you will just be killing your own chances of getting the job. Wait until you have a permanent position, then you can fight to fix things (if you want).
  • If you file formal complaints or sue them, you are unlikely to see a happy outcome in a fair amount of time, so
  • Spend your energy on publishing many, strong papers. If your h-index hits 30 and you reach 2000 citations on 100 papers, eventually one of these institutions will have no choice but to hire you because you will be objectively and obviously a stronger candidate than the one they originally thought they wanted. Go to many conferences and make friends with as many powerful professors in your field as you can, one of them might like you and might make a “rigged” job opening for you.
  • If you are unable to develop what others think is a strong publication record, and you are unable to make friends with a lot of powerful professors, do remember that there’s 1000s of people that can do these things quite well (whether thanks to very good luck, being born into an extra privileged family, having a lot of money, or doing the near-impossible: simply working even harder and making even more sacrifices than you and me), so I hope you don’t have a closed-mind towards other excellent academic opportunities outside of being a professor at a top institution in one of your favorite countries. Academics tend never to give up, which is good, but compare yourself to the top sprinters in the world: you can be the best in your country and not make it to the Olympics.

How to find those job adverts which are really open?

Do you think that there is a place where you can find job adverts that say “this particular job hiring is going to be done in a fair way”? If so, how can you be sure they are being honest? So you can do the following:

  • Look everywhere and join every relevant mailing-list.
  • If you want to err on the caution, only apply to jobs where the advert is a rather direct fit for you. If they say they want someone specializing in machine learning, you can be tempted to apply because you do have a couple of excellent papers that used machine learning, but consider instead focusing on the ads that are really directly related to your specialty.

How to deal with this if you are an insider and are observing this behavior on a regular basis?
If one notices such rigged position job advertisements in its environment, should one report it somewhere? Where could such conduct be reported?

That’s up to you:

  • You can ignore it (most professors do, and maybe that’s why they managed to get professorships, but it’s also why most of them are not celebrated like Martin Luther King Jr for standing up against corruption).
  • You can bring the matter up with the hiring committee, or if they don’t listen than the person in charge of the chair of the hiring committee (either the Head of the Department, or Dean/Associate-Dean of the Faculty if the Head of the Department is the committee chair, which often is indeed the case). Or you can write an article about it, or go to your local news station and have an investigative journalist write about it. You can even raise the matter in a tribunal. But all of these things can backfire on you, especially if you don’t have tenure yet.

I gave department and campus tours to applicants, of who i knew they
had no chance, even if their credentials were better than that of some
of the professors in the selection commission.

  • Should i have told them, that the whole vacancy and invitation for the interview was a charade?

Whether you “should” or “should not” is subjective. Are there any laws obligating you to tell them this? If so, then if you want to be a law-abiding citizen no matte what the law says, then perhaps you should. If not, it’s up to you, but remember that your department colleagues can be very nasty to you and make your life a living Hell if you anger them.

Tagged : / / / /

Making Game: How can I deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Original Source Link

Summary

I was dissatisfied with my job and accepted an offer elsewhere. Now my boss keeps insisting I stay, and enlists others to try and convince me. How do I deal professionally with this?

Context

A medium-sized IT company with offices both in Eastern Europe (where I work) and in Western Europe. One of their major products is an ERP product that is deployed for customers in 20+ countries.

I have been working here for more than five years in various departments. I have worked with my current boss from the first day here when he was a team leader. This complicates things for me now, but also provides me a great insight about what makes him tick.

After working here for a while, I was moved into a project that is very unappealing for me (“The Bad Place”) – it is an ERP product with a messy monolithic architecture, error prone deployments, lots of manual work, almost no automatic testing, data transferring based on files, etc.

There is another project that is much more interesting to me (“The Good Place” – state of the art micro-services based architecture using the latest technologies and design pattern with 80-90% test coverage), but that is currently only used by a single client, and has a smaller team.

I was moved to “The Bad Place” without being asked, and when I complained, I only received vague promises about a transfer. Taking into account the whole context, I tried to find an alternative and I was offered a slightly better paying similar position in another medium-sized company.

The leaving process

I told my manager that I am going to leave and explained to him why I cannot work any longer (very old technology that completely demotivates me). He immediately told his boss, but he did not find any solution.

However, I was later contacted by a fellow manager, and by an ex-colleague (prompted by my boss), who both tried to make me stay. As I accepted the offer from the other company, I told both of them that I will leave the company.

The dilemma

The repeated attempts to make me stay are becoming very annoying for me, and I go to sleep thinking about this. My first reflex is to simply block all subsequent discussions with my boss, however, this feels a very unprofessional thing to do and it will also burn all bridges with a person I used to be professionally close to.

I can also try to accept all subsequent discussions, but it does not feel fair for me to listen to so many promises that seem to change from a day to another. It is also somewhat painful to see that a guy I know for years is trying to trick me.

Question: How do I deal with a manager who keeps insisting I stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

If the facts are with you, argue the facts. If the law is with you, argue the law. If nothing is with you, just argue.
————— old lawyer’s proverb

This is the sound of them having nothing to offer you.

They can’t offer a serious money raise, or they would have offered it already. They can’t place you in a job role you find fulfilling, or they would have done that already. They have nothing.

So they’re falling back on cheap psychological games. That’s all they got.

Forgive them their stupidity, and say no.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Politely without committing to anything. Once you hand in your resignation they have no way of forcing anything. If they want to spend that time having meetings instead of preparing handover that isn’t your problem.

You use the broken record method.

Whatever they say, your answer is “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. If they ask why you are leaving you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. If they ask what it takes to make you stay you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. Whatever argument you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”.

Manipulators are good at making arguments that are hard to refute for someone who isn’t an experienced manipulator themselves. And some people think because they can’t refute the argument they have to do what the manipulator asks. The broken record method makes it clear to the manipulator. On the other hand, you can just say to the manipulator “your arguments are much better than mine. The answer is unchanged. I’m leaving.” Or say “No”. “No” is a complete answer.

PS. The whole context is arguing with a manipulator. People can manipulate us when we feel bound by conventions (honesty, sincerity, being nice, being Polite) that they don’t feel bound by. If you are a born manipulator yourself, you can try playing the same game, but better, and beat them. If you are not, or just hate being manipulative, you win by refusing to play the game and making no concessions whatsoever. That includes not being polite, not showing any opening whatsoever.

You’ve accepted another offer, you’ve given your leave and you’re moving on. There’s nothing they can do about it. You don’t need to tell them anything. If they ask where you’re going you can simply say that you had ‘another opportunity’ and you’ve made up your mind. If they try to make offers to get you to say, you can simply thank them and decline to stay. Every single time.

I know you might think it sounds silly saying the same thing over and over again, but the reality is they’re doing and asking you the same thing over and over again, so it’s a perfectly valid and professional response. And you’re right, it’s better not to decline the meetings, just agree to them and repeatedly let them know your position. As Kilisi said, if they want to waste time and energy trying to get you to stay instead of accepting it and looking for someone else, that’s NOT your problem. Don’t let them pressure you, this is your decision and you have autonomy. You can’t control what they do, only your responses to their actions.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear
offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Try something like: “Thank you. But no.”

Repeat as often as necessary.

I would write a formal email to my manager along the lines of:

As you know, I have decided to quit this company to pursue my personal career goals. I greatly appreciate your ongoing engagement to keep me on board, and it shows me how much the company values my work. Unfortunately, I have made my decision and committed myself elsewhere and I don’t break my commitments. I would appreciate if we could skip further discussion on that matter as I have nothing to add here. I am happy to do everything I can to provide you with a clean handover.

Thank you for your understanding and for the great time working together in the past X years.

If you get further invites to discuss the matter, just refer to that mail. If they insist on discussing that nonetheless, attend, but just repeat. Don’t give any further details and reasons and especially don’t tell anyone where you are going to work!

He immediately told his boss, but he did not find any solution.

I also know (informally) that some big boss asked why there is such a big attrition rate in that department (generally the company culture is great and the attrition rate is quite small), so managers are struggling to keep all folks in place.

scheduled a few other 1:1 meetings to mention that I must say what I want so they can try to improvise something and stay in the company

This looks like everyone KNOWS the problems and reasons behind them but deny they exist and start “digging” with each new occurrence of profits from those problems, treating them with surprise and EXPECTING you to provide solutions.

I do not fully understand what they are trying to build there

It’s THEIR responsibility to explain that. Especially when such understanding would help you stay. I assume they didn’t do that.

They imagined I was coming from a “worse place” and there would be no problems when working in the department (that’s why they skipped me when having 1:1 discussions with each team member)

“I thought you know” – so they assumed, without fact-checking that they “promote” you somehow? That the “Bad place” is better because you’re coming from a “worse” one? That’s a textbook example of manipulation by gratitude. They give you so much and that’s how you repay them?

For me to work in the Good Place, it would that a colleague from there to no longer there which is impossible (I never asked for that anyway).

That’s another example of manipulation. They are blackmailing you “If we hire you, it means you will be responsible for firing someone else”.

She managed to convince lots of folks to stay including in the very last day

I think she managed to manipulate people into staying. Not convincing them. That’s why they bring her to talk with you. She’s probably company No.1 manipulator.

Your boss is doing “give nothing, take everything”. Promises are cheap and worth the paper they are written on. Especially so vague as the ones made to you.

I would say:

We talked about my position and responsibilities before any transitions were done. I was excluded from any of those and only informed about the results. I don’t see anything we can discuss as, I hope, you are aware that there are multiple problems on the company side that I refuse to solve by my sacrifice of pay, happiness, pleasure of doing my job, and overall mental stability. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that NOW is a bad moment to promise me anything and stop talking with me about that.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Be polite with him. It looks to me that he’s making a real (although maybe a clumsy one) effort to keep you.

Problem is, in the workplace is not always possible to do what one feels is good. He is feeling very likely much frustrated, since a valid colleague is leaving, he apparently has no power in letting you work at the “good place” for reasons outside his control and all the attempts he is making are basically without hope.

Be firm with your decision, but show appreciation for what he is doing and let him understand that you got the situation and that you really think he made all he could. This will likely stop him to bothering you again.

I think the best thing you can do is to change your feelings regarding this. Instead of being annoyed by everything try to be amused instead. Amused that they think you will reconsider. Amused that they want you to stay but offer nothing. Amused they use your time for meetings instead of handover. Amused that they think you are ok with using old technology. Amused that they think they can lie to you. Basically see all their futile attempts to convince you as the futile attempts they are, and see the amusement in how they think they can convince you.

This isn’t easy to do. But if you manage they won’t be able to get to you. And they will notice that you are more confident, and that they won’t be able to convince you. And hopefully they’ll even get the message, and stop pestering you.

I also know (informally) that some big boss asked why there is such a big attrition rate in that department (generally the company culture is great and the attrition rate is quite small), so managers are struggling to keep all folks in place.

This is the reason they are trying to keep you. Your manager have been tasked with lowering the attrition rate, and he have to deliver. Ultimately his job is on the line, and he will do whatever he needs to keep the job. But that’s his problem and not yours.

One time, I had a boss who would scream at all his employees. The guy was a bully. He was extremely difficult to work for. One morning, he just wouldn’t stop screaming at his secretary. And his secretary took a break, called HR to tell them she quit, and never came back.

Now legally, she probably didn’t have the right to do that because she still had her notice period to finish, but emotionally, no one could fault her decision.

So if at one point, you get sick and tired of all this BS from your boss. Know that you can put an abrupt end to it. You can say “no” to those meetings. Furthermore, you can let him know politely that if he doesn’t stop, you’re not coming back tomorrow morning. And if he still doesn’t stop, you can let him know that you’re going to leave right now and not even going to finish your day. But if you do this, don’t bluff. If you issue an ultimatum, follow through with it.

Now, will there be consequences? And will that burn a bridge?

Yes, this is going to burn a bridge. No doubt about that. And yes, of course, there may be legal repercussions that you don’t like. In fact, you should research what those legal consequences are going to be in your jurisdiction before you issue such an ultimatum in the first place.

But at some point, you have to respect yourself enough to say, “Enough is enough. I’m out of here”, then turn off your cell phone and walk away. And yes, Tom has a point. If the stress gets to you, you can call in sick too.

I was in a very similar situation to yours almost a decade ago. Working on a software solution I didn’t like (“The Bad Place”), with managament making vague promises that I would be moved to the other solution I liked (“The Good Place”) but no specific commitment in terms of a timeline.

You’re doing the right thing, leaving a job that doesn’t make you happy, and they’re trying to make you stay with tricks. As other people answered earlier, stay firm in your refusal and move on.

It will probably be one of the best career decisions in your life. In a few years you’ll look back amused (as @Polygorial has said) and be proud of the decision you made.

All of the above suggestions for shutting down the conversation with your longtime boss and coworker are poor suggestions, imo. Having worked with this person for years, leaving a clear and happy atmosphere behind you is important.
Be unfailingly bright and personable in your responses. With goodwill, answer:

  • The decision to leave was difficult, and not taken lightly.
  • I felt very strongly that I could not commit to an indefinite term working on a project that does not engage me on any level.
  • I understood that your needs required me in that role, but after thinking it through, I realized that I was simply unable to continue meeting your expectations on that assignment.

Be careful to use past tense when talking about your decision. Otherwise you signal that your decision is still in play.

Person to person, as opportunity presents, assure your management that you have grown under their management, and that you will always be glad for the time you have spent working with them.
Abrupt changes in relationship are always difficult. You are accustomed to the subordinate role, especially with this individual, and that is of course the relationship with which both of you are comfortable.
Take care to keep that discomfort from creating false expectations on his part or an unyielding robotic response on your part, because either can create hard feelings. If their manipulations bug you enough, you may start to think hard feelings don’t matter, but they do. Even to you, personally, in retirement, it will matter how you handled yourself in this situation. In the meantime, having dark places in your work history can be a real detriment. You never know when or how it may affect you later.

Just say its your personal choice and that you have no hard feelings. Say I am sorry. You will have to learn to say “No” eventually. Just behave in a good manner with fellows who try to insist that you stay. Even though you are leaving, you may have feelings for the company you work with. So do not hide your feelings with the manager. Make up your mind and say to him that it’s your final decision to leave and say sorry the next time you have a meeting.

They can’t force you to stay after your notice period. They will not even try. So just relax, if you want to leave, you can leave.

Tagged : / / / /

Server Bug Fix: How can I deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Original Source Link

Summary

I was dissatisfied with my job and accepted an offer elsewhere. Now my boss keeps insisting I stay, and enlists others to try and convince me. How do I deal professionally with this?

Context

A medium-sized IT company with offices both in Eastern Europe (where I work) and in Western Europe. One of their major products is an ERP product that is deployed for customers in 20+ countries.

I have been working here for more than five years in various departments. I have worked with my current boss from the first day here when he was a team leader. This complicates things for me now, but also provides me a great insight about what makes him tick.

After working here for a while, I was moved into a project that is very unappealing for me (“The Bad Place”) – it is an ERP product with a messy monolithic architecture, error prone deployments, lots of manual work, almost no automatic testing, data transferring based on files, etc.

There is another project that is much more interesting to me (“The Good Place” – state of the art micro-services based architecture using the latest technologies and design pattern with 80-90% test coverage), but that is currently only used by a single client, and has a smaller team.

I was moved to “The Bad Place” without being asked, and when I complained, I only received vague promises about a transfer. Taking into account the whole context, I tried to find an alternative and I was offered a slightly better paying similar position in another medium-sized company.

The leaving process

I told my manager that I am going to leave and explained to him why I cannot work any longer (very old technology that completely demotivates me). He immediately told his boss, but he did not find any solution.

However, I was later contacted by a fellow manager, and by an ex-colleague (prompted by my boss), who both tried to make me stay. As I accepted the offer from the other company, I told both of them that I will leave the company.

The dilemma

The repeated attempts to make me stay are becoming very annoying for me, and I go to sleep thinking about this. My first reflex is to simply block all subsequent discussions with my boss, however, this feels a very unprofessional thing to do and it will also burn all bridges with a person I used to be professionally close to.

I can also try to accept all subsequent discussions, but it does not feel fair for me to listen to so many promises that seem to change from a day to another. It is also somewhat painful to see that a guy I know for years is trying to trick me.

Question: How do I deal with a manager who keeps insisting I stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

If the facts are with you, argue the facts. If the law is with you, argue the law. If nothing is with you, just argue.
————— old lawyer’s proverb

This is the sound of them having nothing to offer you.

They can’t offer a serious money raise, or they would have offered it already. They can’t place you in a job role you find fulfilling, or they would have done that already. They have nothing.

So they’re falling back on cheap psychological games. That’s all they got.

Forgive them their stupidity, and say no.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Politely without committing to anything. Once you hand in your resignation they have no way of forcing anything. If they want to spend that time having meetings instead of preparing handover that isn’t your problem.

You use the broken record method.

Whatever they say, your answer is “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. If they ask why you are leaving you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. If they ask what it takes to make you stay you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”. Whatever argument you say “I have given my notice, and my last day of work is the 6th of June”.

Manipulators are good at making arguments that are hard to refute for someone who isn’t an experienced manipulator themselves. And some people think because they can’t refute the argument they have to do what the manipulator asks. The broken record method makes it clear to the manipulator. On the other hand, you can just say to the manipulator “your arguments are much better than mine. The answer is unchanged. I’m leaving.” Or say “No”. “No” is a complete answer.

PS. The whole context is arguing with a manipulator. People can manipulate us when we feel bound by conventions (honesty, sincerity, being nice, being Polite) that they don’t feel bound by. If you are a born manipulator yourself, you can try playing the same game, but better, and beat them. If you are not, or just hate being manipulative, you win by refusing to play the game and making no concessions whatsoever. That includes not being polite, not showing any opening whatsoever.

You’ve accepted another offer, you’ve given your leave and you’re moving on. There’s nothing they can do about it. You don’t need to tell them anything. If they ask where you’re going you can simply say that you had ‘another opportunity’ and you’ve made up your mind. If they try to make offers to get you to say, you can simply thank them and decline to stay. Every single time.

I know you might think it sounds silly saying the same thing over and over again, but the reality is they’re doing and asking you the same thing over and over again, so it’s a perfectly valid and professional response. And you’re right, it’s better not to decline the meetings, just agree to them and repeatedly let them know your position. As Kilisi said, if they want to waste time and energy trying to get you to stay instead of accepting it and looking for someone else, that’s NOT your problem. Don’t let them pressure you, this is your decision and you have autonomy. You can’t control what they do, only your responses to their actions.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear
offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Try something like: “Thank you. But no.”

Repeat as often as necessary.

I would write a formal email to my manager along the lines of:

As you know, I have decided to quit this company to pursue my personal career goals. I greatly appreciate your ongoing engagement to keep me on board, and it shows me how much the company values my work. Unfortunately, I have made my decision and committed myself elsewhere and I don’t break my commitments. I would appreciate if we could skip further discussion on that matter as I have nothing to add here. I am happy to do everything I can to provide you with a clean handover.

Thank you for your understanding and for the great time working together in the past X years.

If you get further invites to discuss the matter, just refer to that mail. If they insist on discussing that nonetheless, attend, but just repeat. Don’t give any further details and reasons and especially don’t tell anyone where you are going to work!

He immediately told his boss, but he did not find any solution.

I also know (informally) that some big boss asked why there is such a big attrition rate in that department (generally the company culture is great and the attrition rate is quite small), so managers are struggling to keep all folks in place.

scheduled a few other 1:1 meetings to mention that I must say what I want so they can try to improvise something and stay in the company

This looks like everyone KNOWS the problems and reasons behind them but deny they exist and start “digging” with each new occurrence of profits from those problems, treating them with surprise and EXPECTING you to provide solutions.

I do not fully understand what they are trying to build there

It’s THEIR responsibility to explain that. Especially when such understanding would help you stay. I assume they didn’t do that.

They imagined I was coming from a “worse place” and there would be no problems when working in the department (that’s why they skipped me when having 1:1 discussions with each team member)

“I thought you know” – so they assumed, without fact-checking that they “promote” you somehow? That the “Bad place” is better because you’re coming from a “worse” one? That’s a textbook example of manipulation by gratitude. They give you so much and that’s how you repay them?

For me to work in the Good Place, it would that a colleague from there to no longer there which is impossible (I never asked for that anyway).

That’s another example of manipulation. They are blackmailing you “If we hire you, it means you will be responsible for firing someone else”.

She managed to convince lots of folks to stay including in the very last day

I think she managed to manipulate people into staying. Not convincing them. That’s why they bring her to talk with you. She’s probably company No.1 manipulator.

Your boss is doing “give nothing, take everything”. Promises are cheap and worth the paper they are written on. Especially so vague as the ones made to you.

I would say:

We talked about my position and responsibilities before any transitions were done. I was excluded from any of those and only informed about the results. I don’t see anything we can discuss as, I hope, you are aware that there are multiple problems on the company side that I refuse to solve by my sacrifice of pay, happiness, pleasure of doing my job, and overall mental stability. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that NOW is a bad moment to promise me anything and stop talking with me about that.

How to deal with a manager who keeps insisting to stay with no clear offer after I have already accepted another company offer?

Be polite with him. It looks to me that he’s making a real (although maybe a clumsy one) effort to keep you.

Problem is, in the workplace is not always possible to do what one feels is good. He is feeling very likely much frustrated, since a valid colleague is leaving, he apparently has no power in letting you work at the “good place” for reasons outside his control and all the attempts he is making are basically without hope.

Be firm with your decision, but show appreciation for what he is doing and let him understand that you got the situation and that you really think he made all he could. This will likely stop him to bothering you again.

I think the best thing you can do is to change your feelings regarding this. Instead of being annoyed by everything try to be amused instead. Amused that they think you will reconsider. Amused that they want you to stay but offer nothing. Amused they use your time for meetings instead of handover. Amused that they think you are ok with using old technology. Amused that they think they can lie to you. Basically see all their futile attempts to convince you as the futile attempts they are, and see the amusement in how they think they can convince you.

This isn’t easy to do. But if you manage they won’t be able to get to you. And they will notice that you are more confident, and that they won’t be able to convince you. And hopefully they’ll even get the message, and stop pestering you.

I also know (informally) that some big boss asked why there is such a big attrition rate in that department (generally the company culture is great and the attrition rate is quite small), so managers are struggling to keep all folks in place.

This is the reason they are trying to keep you. Your manager have been tasked with lowering the attrition rate, and he have to deliver. Ultimately his job is on the line, and he will do whatever he needs to keep the job. But that’s his problem and not yours.

One time, I had a boss who would scream at all his employees. The guy was a bully. He was extremely difficult to work for. One morning, he just wouldn’t stop screaming at his secretary. And his secretary took a break, called HR to tell them she quit, and never came back.

Now legally, she probably didn’t have the right to do that because she still had her notice period to finish, but emotionally, no one could fault her decision.

So if at one point, you get sick and tired of all this BS from your boss. Know that you can put an abrupt end to it. You can say “no” to those meetings. Furthermore, you can let him know politely that if he doesn’t stop, you’re not coming back tomorrow morning. And if he still doesn’t stop, you can let him know that you’re going to leave right now and not even going to finish your day. But if you do this, don’t bluff. If you issue an ultimatum, follow through with it.

Now, will there be consequences? And will that burn a bridge?

Yes, this is going to burn a bridge. No doubt about that. And yes, of course, there may be legal repercussions that you don’t like. In fact, you should research what those legal consequences are going to be in your jurisdiction before you issue such an ultimatum in the first place.

But at some point, you have to respect yourself enough to say, “Enough is enough. I’m out of here”, then turn off your cell phone and walk away. And yes, Tom has a point. If the stress gets to you, you can call in sick too.

I was in a very similar situation to yours almost a decade ago. Working on a software solution I didn’t like (“The Bad Place”), with managament making vague promises that I would be moved to the other solution I liked (“The Good Place”) but no specific commitment in terms of a timeline.

You’re doing the right thing, leaving a job that doesn’t make you happy, and they’re trying to make you stay with tricks. As other people answered earlier, stay firm in your refusal and move on.

It will probably be one of the best career decisions in your life. In a few years you’ll look back amused (as @Polygorial has said) and be proud of the decision you made.

All of the above suggestions for shutting down the conversation with your longtime boss and coworker are poor suggestions, imo. Having worked with this person for years, leaving a clear and happy atmosphere behind you is important.
Be unfailingly bright and personable in your responses. With goodwill, answer:

  • The decision to leave was difficult, and not taken lightly.
  • I felt very strongly that I could not commit to an indefinite term working on a project that does not engage me on any level.
  • I understood that your needs required me in that role, but after thinking it through, I realized that I was simply unable to continue meeting your expectations on that assignment.

Be careful to use past tense when talking about your decision. Otherwise you signal that your decision is still in play.

Person to person, as opportunity presents, assure your management that you have grown under their management, and that you will always be glad for the time you have spent working with them.
Abrupt changes in relationship are always difficult. You are accustomed to the subordinate role, especially with this individual, and that is of course the relationship with which both of you are comfortable.
Take care to keep that discomfort from creating false expectations on his part or an unyielding robotic response on your part, because either can create hard feelings. If their manipulations bug you enough, you may start to think hard feelings don’t matter, but they do. Even to you, personally, in retirement, it will matter how you handled yourself in this situation. In the meantime, having dark places in your work history can be a real detriment. You never know when or how it may affect you later.

Just say its your personal choice and that you have no hard feelings. Say I am sorry. You will have to learn to say “No” eventually. Just behave in a good manner with fellows who try to insist that you stay. Even though you are leaving, you may have feelings for the company you work with. So do not hide your feelings with the manager. Make up your mind and say to him that it’s your final decision to leave and say sorry the next time you have a meeting.

They can’t force you to stay after your notice period. They will not even try. So just relax, if you want to leave, you can leave.

Tagged : / / / /

Server Bug Fix: What is this building and where is it? Europe in 1944-45 by a U.S. Army Air Force soldier. France, Germany, Belgium, or Netherlands?

Original Source Link

What is this building and where is it?

Taken in Europe in 1944-45 by a U.S. Army Air Force soldier 9th Air Force, 397th Bombardier Group, 599th Bomb Squadron.

Could be in France north of Paris, Germany near Drucken or Monchen-Gladbach, Brussels Belgium, or Venlo Netherlands.

I have two additional photos with a man standing on the stairs in a helmet and uniform, but I couldn’t figure out how to add those to this post. In those two photos more detail of the doors and building is visible.

He was stationed at St. Quentin, France and at the end of the war in Venlo, Netherlands.

I have searched all the towns he mentioned in his diary and have not found anything that looks like this building. I think it is a church, but it could be something else.

Note: If anyone can tell me how to add more photos, that would be great.

Domed building with features that look like a church in the countryside

That’s the Chapelle royale de Dreux, also known as St-Louis de Dreux.
Dreux is a town about 70 km west of Paris. This chapel is historically important, since the last King of France, Louis-Philippe (reign: 1830-1848), is buried there; the Chapel is the traditional burial place of members of the House of Orléans.

As @Andrew already mentioned in his valuable comment (thanks a lot!), the former Dreux/Vernouillet airfield (now Vernouillet Airport) is located just some kilometers southwest of Dreux. The 397th Bombardment Group including the 599th Bombardment Squadron was stationed there in September / October 1944.

See also the American Air Museum in Britain on Dreux Airfield and the Historical Report of the 397th Bombardment Group from B26.com.

Some modern pics of the Chapelle royale de Dreux:

Chapelle royale, Dreux. Pic by Nicolas Vigier / CC BY; Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Source: Wikimedia Commos, pic by Nicolas Vigier / CC BY

See also this pic from Google Maps:

Chapelle royale, Dreux. Source: Google Maps.

Google Maps with both locations (Airport and Chapelle Royale – thx at @BobJarvis-ReinstateMonica for the idea!):

Google Maps Airport -> Chapelle Royale

Tagged : / / /

Server Bug Fix: May an alien visa-holder enter the US from Europe?

Original Source Link

I have an immigrant visa and I’m an immediate relative of a US resident.. I called the CBP to make sure that I can enter and he warned me not to travel through Europe because I’ll have to stay in another country for 14 days. But that’s, wrong, right? According to the travel proclamation, shouldn’t I be excluded from the ban? Since I’m an immediate relative of a US resident, I mean.

It depends on some additional factors about you and the US resident. here is the actual text from the proclamation:

(a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident;

(iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen
or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;

(iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age
of 21;

(v) any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee
seeking to enter the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa
classifications;

So basically, the exception will only apply if the US resident is your spouse, or a close relative (child, sibling) as long as both you and the US resident are under 21 and unmarried. It seems that if you are the US resident’s child, foster child, or ward, there is no age restriction.

It also depends on where you go in Europe. The proclamation only mentions the Schengen Area (which doesn’t comprise all European countries):

For purposes of this proclamation, the Schengen Area comprises 26 European states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Also you might want to consult https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/international-travel-document-news/1580226297.htm for more up-to-date information (e.g. the ban currently includes Ireland):

Published 14.05.2020

  1. Passengers who have transited or have been in Austria, Belgium, China (People’s Rep.), Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland (Rep.), Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland or in the United Kingdom (excluding overseas territories outside of Europe), in the past 14 days are not allowed to enter the USA.
    -This does not apply to:

    • nationals and permanent residents of the USA;
    • spouses of nationals and of permanent residents of the USA;
    • parents/legal guardians of an unmarried and younger than 21 years national or permanent resident of the USA;
    • the unmarried and younger than 21 years brother or sister of a national or permanent resident of the USA, who is unmarried and younger than 21 years;
    • the child/foster child/ward of a national or permanent resident of the USA;
    • passengers with the following visas: A-1, A-2, C-1, C-1/D, C-2, C-3, D, E-1, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, IR-4, IH-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 visa;
    • members of the U.S. Armed Forces, spouses, and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces;
    • passengers with evidence of traveling at the invitation of the USA government for a purpose related to the containment/mitigation of the Coronavirus (COVID-19);
    • passengers with documents issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or U.S. Department of State indicating that the passenger is exempt from the restriction;
    • B1 crew crewmembers that are engaged in lightering, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activity, wind farm activity, private air/sea crew and other similar crewmember actives.
  2. Passengers who have been in one of the countries listed in bullet number 1 in the past 14 days but are exempt from the restriction to enter the USA, must arrive at one of the following airports: Atlanta (ATL), Boston (BOS), Chicago (ORD), Dallas, (DFW), Detroit (DTW), Honolulu (HNL), Los Angeles (LAX), Miami (MIA), New York (JFK or EWR), San Francisco (SFO), Seattle (SEA) and Washington (IAD).
  3. Passengers who have been in Austria, Belgium, China (People’s Rep.), Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland (Rep.), Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland or United Kingdom (excluding overseas territories outside of Europe) in the past 14 days but are exempt from the restriction to enter the USA, must self-quarantine for 14 days once they reach their final destination.
Tagged : / / /

Code Bug Fix: Can a customer ask for a different sales rep?

Original Source Link

I am in charge of maintenance for a large business application, bought off the shelf from a major software editor, in Europe.

We are now deeply committed to them (as in the cost to change would be enormous), and still need to pay them more money from time to time, for things like additional licences, consulting, …

The thing is the sales rep handling my sector knows we’re stuck, and is not trying at all, making me wait a month for 3-digit quotes, and so on.

I was wondering about asking for a new sales representative, but;

  • I don’t know if that’s a thing. Can you simply ask for a different guy?
  • Who do I ask? The current guy?

What you want is the situation to improve. Talking to your current sales rep could work, sometimes you have a little motivating to do. Changing the rep could work too.

And you are not stuck, you have strong incentives to stay. Which is different.
Once incentives to change mount up, change can happen!
And dissatisfaction with a supplier/service provider can even make people switch to an inferior solution, if they get better treatment there.

I used to work for prediction provider (certain topic of predictions, not general). For some subtopics we were great, for others not so much.
One day, we rolled out an upgrade which impacted stability negatively. I personally advised for rolling back, but the new features were deemed strategically important to acquire new customers, so the decision got made to not roll back.
Users groaned. We worked on improving stability, but it went slow. Users groaned so much their bosses listened, and SLAs got checked. We were within in the limits of the SLA, but we used up our yearly allowance in 2 weeks! (Luckily for us, it was in December).
Then a big customer cancelled their contract 1 year in advance and told us: Either things improve drastically, or this cancelation stands!
This finally got the attention of our boss and priorities shifted.
So this worked!

In the same company, we were so dissatisfied with our database provider, we switched them out. It wasnt highest priority, but they worked on it for 5 years! Little by little. Their reps never got alerted to that fact, the dissatisfaction was that high.

So, if you are dissatisfied enough, switching may become suddenly an option. Even when it’s costly. So you have still some leverage.
When you call with the rep, you dont have to go nuclear right away. Simply stateing your dissatisfied and want things to improve may be enough.

Like you would in a shop or in a restaurant, ask for the manager, voice your lack of satisfaction and ask for a different contact person.

Make clear how the delays are affecting you, so that they are aware that you are not stuck, but you are only stuck as long as the cost of the opportunity loss due to their “not even trying” is lower than the cost of changing application.

I think you should try to keep this an impersonal as possible.

If your vendor has a channel for complaints, you should engage with that channel.

The underlying problem may not be the sales-rep at all. There may be widespread business issues that make it problematic to get quotes.

They are more likely to care if you look like you’re likely to walk.

You should double check your SLAs to see if they are complying.

If you feel like you’re getting the run around, you should ask the sales rep who you need to speak with to get things moving along. If you look like you may go over their head, that may spur them into action.

My guess is your sales rep’s boss is pressuring them to bring in new business and that’s where they’re spending their time, at the expense of their current customers. Or maybe the vendor is in difficulty and has reduced their cost of sales, or maybe they’ve had a lot of growth and haven’t ramped up their customer service enough.

A lot of sales-driven companies will team their sales reps into an “outside” rep that goes out to meet customers and get new business, and an “inside” rep that stays at their desk to be available for calls, to issue quotes, and to follow up on orders. They work as a team so they know the customer’s history, what discounts they get, and so forth.

What you might do is ask your current person whether they have an inside rep that you can deal with directly. Maybe they do, and the sale rep just isn’t referring them to you–or maybe they are doing so, and isn’t aware that the inside rep is dropping the ball so much.

I have always heard that the customer is king(?)

The thing is the sales rep handling my sector knows we’re stuck, and is not trying at all

Sounds like he think that he has the whip-hand. and he does – for the time being.

Your company has made a basic supply chain error, where the tail is wagging the dog. The bus factor applies to companies too. As thing stand, if they go under, you go under. And there is no company that cannot go under; I am sure that you can think of a few major examples yourself.

You need multiple suppliers – there is no question of that.

Your only decision is whether you want to let the current supplier know that you are looking for others or not. As trump says “what have you got to lose?”.

Just innocently remarking to your current supplier that another source offers better terms might be enough to gee this particular rep up. Or, you might take it higher up the food chain.

Or, keep it to yourself and start buying elsewhere. Sooner or later your current supplier will notice that. What you tell them at that point is up to you.

But, you must secure multiple suppliers, otherwise you know who owns “your” company.

(your company might also want to consider the employment of whomever got them into this mess)

We are now deeply committed to them (as in the cost to change would be enormous),

(…)

The thing is the sales rep handling my sector knows we’re stuck

Escalate the problem, and keep escalating until you get to someone who listens.

If they are a large company, they know that someone is “deeply committed and stuck” until they are not anymore. There have been multiple cases of costly switches which were very bad for the previous vendor and the new (competing) vendor made a lot of efforts to facilitate the switch and win a new business.

This works best when you have a seizable business with that vendor.

Now, if your business to them is peanuts, the effort to please you may not be there (especially when there know that you are stuck) – at some point there is an equilibrium to reach between the cost to please a customer (not only in euros, also in terms of PR etc.) and the benefit from said customer.

Tagged : /