4 ms·
> > They can let you pursue ideas that they know are not novel (and the papers will be rejected). Or suggest you try something they know won't pan out. > That
by _aavaa_ 3y ago
> > They can let you pursue ideas that they know are not novel (and the papers will be rejected). Or suggest you try something they know won't pan out.
> That sounds like exactly the kind of thing a union could address.
Short of having a group of union members becoming your defacto supervisor and doing the guidance your supervisor should be doing, I don't see how they could help in this situation.
- autoexec 3y agoUnion puts rules in their contract saying 0 retaliation when grievances are filed or disputes arise, explicitly calling out commonly seen retaliations while still leaving room to account for other sneakiness or else X and if students who have complaints feel retaliated against they can now appeal to the union who (if convinced) proceed to X where X can mean anything from disciplinary action against the supervisor, lawsuits, or strike. Supervisors who want to avoid X will then be forced to reconsider retaliating against students or at the very least find ways to do it where students don't feel like they're being retaliated against which I suppose is the best you can expect since assholes exist and some percentage of them will end up as supervisors.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoYes, I understand the idea of such clauses. My specific argument was that for academia it's very easy for them to retaliate in ways that are very non-obvious as being retaliations, especially to outside observers: > > They can let you pursue ideas that they know are not novel (and the papers will be rejected). Or suggest you try something they know won't pan out.