On June 25th the University and UPROR-UAW had our 9th bargaining session. Until now, the University has not responded to most proposals, and their few counterproposals threaten to lower the standards already in place, leading postdocs to deliver an open letter signed by more than 80% of us to President Lifton and the Rockefeller Administration to urge them to bargain quickly and in good faith. This session, the University finally responded to our proposals on Appointment Security, Appointments and Reappointments, Discipline and Dismissal, International Researcher Rights, Union Rights and Access, and Union Security. The upshot is that it appears the University is beginning to increase the pace of bargaining in response to the urgency shown by postdocs. However, many of these first counterproposals still fail to match the standards set by other union contracts across the city, and some even propose reductions from the status quo already at Rockefeller.
We hope that their response to our proposals reflects an increasing awareness of the importance of responding to all of our proposed articles, not just the few that they think are fundamental to the contract structure. Our job as a committee is to push the University to drop their strategy of holding articles back and lowering standards, and agree to stronger protections for all workers. But, as always, our power to win a strong contract comes from demonstrations of the broad support of the members of our Union. It is your presence with us at the bargaining table (RSVP to observe future sessions here!) and participation in actions, such as last week’s letter, that drives this message through to the University.
The details of all articles discussed in last week’s meeting are below. It’s a long message, but that’s good; there are a lot of articles to review!
UPROR-UAW Proposals:
Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment
This article is to ensure that the University provides a working environment of respect, dignity, equity, inclusion, trust, and support that protects civil and professional discourse. It secures disability access, and safeguards from discrimination, mistreatment, abuse, sexual harassment, and coercion. If such discrimination or harassment does occur, reporting will be conducted such that it is free from fear of retaliation. We proposed our article and are awaiting the University’s response.
UPROR-UAW Counters:
The University offered a counter at the session, and we are moving very close to a Tentative Agreement! We have successfully bargained the incorporation of information regarding inclusivity at Rockefeller, visa support info, and requirements for how long postings must stay active.
We responded with a counterproposal that protects our rights by establishing that the University shall provide all resources necessary for Unit Members to perform their duties. We also reaffirmed the language on remote work and clarified provisions regarding purchases or rentals that are not available through normal procurement channels. The University responded with a counterproposal in the same session. While we are moving closer to a Tentative Agreement, the University still refuses to commit to clear language guaranteeing necessary materials, which are protections that have been won in the other postdoctoral researcher contracts in New York City.
University Counters:
Appointment Security: Appointments and Reappointments (see pages 8-11)
The University has proposed unacceptable reductions from the status quo. The most notable of these is a reduction of the notice of non-reappointment from six months’ notice to three months. To suggest actually lowering the notice currently provided, which costs the University nothing, is insulting. International workers are especially affected because the end of their appointment will often also mean the end of their visa. In a challenging job market where several-month searches are common, this proposal will affect everyone. We will continue to reject any proposal that lowers the standards for Unit Members.
Discipline and Dismissal (see pages 17-19)
This article covers the conditions of discipline cases (which could lead to the dismissal of a Unit Member) and the discipline process itself. Both Parties agree that discipline and dismissal shall only be for just cause. However, their language also includes a provision allowing the University to unilaterally determine the termination of Unit Members in the case of loss of funding. This is unacceptable and falls below the standard set in peer postdoctoral contracts. Our university must use its resources to protect our scientific community in this time of uncertainty rather than pass the costs on to the researchers themselves.
Grievance and Arbitration (see pages 11-17)
The University claims that the grievance article is a pillar of the contract. However, they have been unwilling to respond to postdoc demands that the procedure move at a pace that both allows postdocs time to resolve the matter informally, and, if it is not resolved, to move to a formal resolution quickly. At the previous bargaining session, we moved towards their position in an effort to respond to their concerns about staff availability for resolution. It was disappointing to see that despite our emphasis that these timelines need to be much quicker overall than their proposals, the counterproposal that they offered gave zero movement towards our stance.
International Researcher Rights (see pages 6-8)
The aim of this article is to establish clear, enforceable rights and protections for international researchers in order to promote equity, reduce unnecessary burdens, and ensure a supportive, welcoming, and stable environment for all, regardless of immigration status. It addresses systemic barriers international researchers face, particularly around visa processes, legal support, financial burdens, and institutional accountability.
The University’s counterproposal lacked the accountability and support we are seeking, and replaced them with vague language, discretionary actions, and conditional support. The proposed language eliminated proactive obligations and critical protections. Overall, the revised language shifts responsibility onto international researchers, and reduces institutional accountability.
No Strike – No Lockout (see pages 19-21)
The National Labor Relations Act guarantees workers the right to use collective actions like strikes to improve conditions. The threat of a strike often provides crucial leverage in negotiations. Some contracts include No Strike clauses, waiving strike rights once disputes can be resolved through other means, like grievance procedures. We will continue to review the University’s proposal, but we cannot meaningfully engage on this article until the eventual grievance process and the enforceability of agreed-upon provisions is more clear.
Union Rights and Access (see pages 4-5)
This article seeks to strengthen the ability of our Union to engage in effective representation through standard provisions for providing information, communication, and access to areas where Unit Members work.
The University countered with a proposal that addresses changes regarding disseminating information to the unit, including posting on mailing lists and physical postings on bulletin boards. The established practices that the University proposes to use are vague and arbitrary, which has historically led to missing emails from UPROR-UAW. Furthermore, the University continues to reject increasingly standard provisions that would support Union representation and the timely resolution of workplace issues. We will continue to push for these provisions, as well as minimizing administrator moderation and censoring of emails.
Union Security (see pages 1-4)
We proposed a Union Security article that ensures all Unit Members, as a condition of their employment, either join the Union and pay membership dues or don’t join and pay fees to the Union in an amount equivalent to dues. Our goal is to make sure everyone contributes fairly to enforcing the rights and protections we’ve won together. The proposal also included automatic paycheck deductions once authorized, introduction to the Union at new-hire orientations, and a clear process for follow-up if someone isn’t contributing their share.
The University counterproposal keeps some of the basic framework but introduces major changes that would weaken union security. Their version creates loopholes that would allow for Unit Members to not contribute to cover the cost of our shared representation and contract enforcement, while continuing to receive the full benefit of our contract; in other words, an “open shop” versus what we’ve proposed, which is an “agency shop.” We’ll keep pushing for an agreement that ensures fair contributions for the protections we all rely on.
Our committee wants to keep hearing your priorities to ensure that we have the highest standards of enforceable timelines and strong contract language providing protections to Unit Members. If you have thoughts or would like to get more involved in the fight, you can join a working group or reply to this email.
You can also be an observer at our next bargaining session on Monday, July 14, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM by RSVPing here.
In solidarity,
Joanna Krzyśpiak
On behalf of the UPROR-UAW Bargaining Committee