Is 65 too old to stay at the helm of a major research center?
[...] Bréchot, who previously led INSERM, the French biomedical research agency, aspires to a second term, but he will turn 65 in July 2017. Under the governing statutes of the foundation that runs the Paris center, that disqualifies him for the renewal, Pasteur's 21-strong board of directors has concluded. Angered by the board's refusal to change the rules, Pasteur's General Meeting, a parliament-style governing body, dissolved the board in June. Now, Bréchot's future is in limbo.
[...] The board, which includes six Pasteur scientists, would not budge. Changing Article 12 would be a lengthy affair that requires government involvement and could lead to a complete review of the foundation's statutes to align them with those of other French foundations, says board chair Rose-Marie Van Lerberghe. That could damage Pasteur, she adds: For example, Bréchot earns a sizable salary but typical foundation statutes require an unpaid president, which would make it difficult to recruit a top candidate.
How old is too old for this job and others?
Would making the position unpaid like other foundation actually make it "difficult to recruit a top candidate"?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/dispute-over-presidents-age-tears-pasteur-institute-apart
(Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:28PM
They pasteurize their presidents so they stay fresh longer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:12PM
No, it would make it difficult to recruit a top-earning candidate. If somebody won't be your top executive without a ridiculous salary, they are probably more interested in the ridiculous salary than your organization. Keep in mind that all of the "top candidates" are already wealthy from the successful ventures that make them "top candidates" to begin with.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:07PM
The question wasn't about a ridiculous salary.
It was about NO salary at all.
I have no idea of the job requirements, or eve if it is a figurehead or a full time job.
But reading the rest of the TFA suggests there is a pre-existing internal power struggle going on, which TFS never mentions. This Bréchot guy is in the midst of imposing a fairly sweeping reform.
The issue is clearly not just age related, although reading the TFS might lead you to believe that.
If limited to under 65, that is still within prime earning years of a top scientist.
There is no expectation that top scientists in research are all that wealthy. We aren't talking about General Motors or Air Bus here. Its a health research oriented company. Your allegations of wealth aren't warranted, and non germane.
If this is a full time job, leaving no time for outside earnings, I could see that an age limit would make the job less desirable for those still active in any field of research, and being forced to surrender any income for the 4 year term would make it less attractive.
On the other hand if all it is a monthly/quarterly board meetings with travel perks and an expense account you could still head your own laboratory, or teaching position, and it would be a nice post-retirement honorary position. Except for that 65 yearn limit.
65 is the new 45. Seems a waste of a goog brain. Pay them something, or let them serve in retirement. Doing neither seems like they want a rubber-stamp figurehead.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:35PM
If this is a full time job, leaving no time for outside earnings, I could see that an age limit would make the job less desirable for those still active in any field of research, and being forced to surrender any income for the 4 year term would make it less attractive.
On the other hand if all it is a monthly/quarterly board meetings with travel perks and an expense account you could still head your own laboratory, or teaching position, and it would be a nice post-retirement honorary position. Except for that 65 yearn limit.
Thanks for pointing out some of the options; I was wondering how a position like that would fund itself. Sounded to me like they were setting themselves up perfectly for corruption - no salary paid to someone in a position to effect policy almost sounds like they're encouraged to take bribes to support themselves.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:15PM
To be fair, I was just responding to the summary. I mean, who actually reads the linked articles around here anyway?
I still think though that earning no salary wouldn't drop the potential quality of candidates. It would probably make it hard to find any candidates, but that wasn't the implication. And I stand by my statement that the top of the field - no matter what the field is - ought to be wealthy enough to take no salary.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Saturday August 06 2016, @09:13PM
To be fair, the summary said...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:14PM
Fixed retirement ages, like a requirement to stop working at age 65, is surely ageism? Discrimination based on age is supposed to be illegal?
It's all well and good if you are able to stop working at a certain age. Personally, I intend to "retire" by working less in a few years. But stop completely? Whatever for, if you like what you do, and are able to continue?
"...and are able to continue", aye, that's the rub. Sometimes the person themselves may not realize that their performance is no longer what it once was. That's where the people around them, specifically, the people hiring them, must be honest.
Which was it in this case? Stupid regulations saying "65 is a magic number"? Or a board that is using these regulations as a way of telling the guy that it's time to move on?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:41PM
"...and are able to continue", aye, that's the rub.
As a 52 y/o aspiring porn star I agree that ageism should be banned. And I can continue (up to four hours according to my prescription).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:52PM
Sometimes the person themselves may not realize that their performance is no longer what it once was.
And even then, their past-prime state may be better than many individuals' peak performance.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:56PM
> Discrimination based on age is supposed to be illegal?
France has rules to push old geezers out of top positions and clear the room for younger people (using the logic that old geezers should enjoy their retirement benefits instead of keeping younger people from rising up or straight unemployed).
That's the kind of discrimination that gets made legal by evil left-wing people when your unemployment stays stuck around 10% (not he same math as the US).
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:41PM
OK, but we're not talking about France.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:43PM
and I think this is exactly the sort of situation that they wanted to avoid, with a geezer holding on to a ruling position.
while it's true that for scientists a lot of productive work can take place after 65, I really think they should only be allowed to be the equivalent of postdocs if they insist on doing research.
they should definitely not be allowed in a decision making position.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:49PM
I was going to point out that in the US (my understanding was) it's illegal.
But when I went to grab a reference I noticed this on the Wikipedia entry for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [wikipedia.org]:
Mandatory retirement based on age is permitted for: Executives over age 65 in high policy-making positions who are entitled to a pension over a minimum yearly amount.
So it looks like it's kosher here, too. TIL.
(Score: 3, Informative) by subs on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:49PM
By international agreements, all commercial pilots over the age of 65 are subject to mandatory retirement. And that's a good thing.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:42PM
They get rid of this old bastard. "You're to old to work, you might drop dead any time!"
New hire is only in his late thirties. Healthy, virile, a real go-getter who makes things happen. Before the first month passes, he suffers a fatal heart attack, or stroke.
Old bastard applies for his job again, triggering the controversy all over. "But, but, but, we just got rid of you because you're so damned OLD!"
Those of us who have a few years on us have seen many old timer retire, then drop dead. People who have worked for 50, 60, maybe even 80 years just don't know how to stop working. Taking a person's job away just because he is old could be a death sentence, in and of itself. Yeah, the asses who booted him out will be saying, "See, he just dropped dead, justifying our concern!" They have no idea that they killed the old man.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:54PM
The prior edition of GungnirSniper is now old enough to get senior discounts, and he tells me that despite his experience and general liveliness he gets turned down for jobs under the code term "not energetic enough". Between companies passing on candidates like him with decades of experience and advanced degrees due to age, and skilled and certified candidates like me for not having a degree in anything, how the hell are H1-Bs getting through?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:56PM
As the hiring manager for a major tech firm whose products you're using to read this post, I can tell you it's not at all difficult to match a job to an H-1B worker. Our overseas contact provides us with a listing of the worker's qualifications. We copy-paste the list into our template for job listings and hit "print." Next we walk the printout and a roll of Scotch tape down to the end of the hallway by the emergency exit. Tape it to the wall, wait a few days, hire, aaand done.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday August 05 2016, @01:09AM
The age factor might be the visible point of contention, however clearly there is a power struggle going on inside.
However, changing the articles of incorporation is not easy, particularly if it requires a regulatory body approval.
Think of it this way: in many places zoning laws govern what might be built in them, however existing structures are "grandfathered" in, meaning, they don't have to comply with the new regulations as long as they are not changed. Try to remodel the old farmhouse and boom! you have to comply with the new regulations, which might too expensive to even try.
So, if changing a single little article would invite the regulatory body to review and bring into compliance the full set, you might not want to do it, even if the old geezer is Pasteur himself.
And yes, I'm a lawyer.