First bargaining of 2026—progress and roadblocks

Postdoc observers prior to the January 14th, 2026 session

On Wednesday, January 14th, and Wednesday, February 4th, we held our 21st and 22nd bargaining sessions with the University. These were our first two sessions of 2026, and while we had expected to reach agreement on several articles over these two meetings, most of the University’s proposals failed to meet the needs and demands of postdocs that we have made clear in session after session. Those demands include a fair and efficient grievance procedure, protections against bullying, harassment, and discrimination, stable appointment durations that protect our membership against being strung along with repeated short appointments, clear support for international workers, and strong health and safety standards.

After seven months, the University finally presented their proposal on Prohibition Against Discrimination, Unlawful Harassment, and Retaliation. Their proposal lacks defined timelines for resolution, and strips members of choices for navigating harassment and discrimination by forcing all claims of discrimination and harassment to go through their mandatory mediation and arbitration system. Their proposal also offers no protections against power-based bullying and abuse. Additionally, the University’s Grievance and Arbitration proposal outlines unacceptably long grievance process timelines. The University’s proposals delay our ability to access timely recourse and fail to offer acceptable protections for members facing discrimination and harassment.

A bargaining observer in the January 14th session said the following:

“As a postdoctoral researcher and bargaining observer, I was deeply concerned by Rockefeller University’s proposals. Limiting researchers’ access to remedies in cases of discrimination and harassment is a step backward, whether those remedies would be through our union or the legal system.

An institution of Rockefeller University’s stature should focus on addressing the lasting impact of misconduct, not on creating obstacles to justice. To lead in equity and inclusion, the University should surpass the protections offered at peer institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine and Mount Sinai, rather than adopt policies that delay grievances or limit options for addressing harassment and bullying. ”

— Vinay Sapuru, Postdoctoral Associate in the Liu Lab

Here is an overview of the rest of the articles discussed so far this year:

Professional Development – (Tentative) Tentative Agreement Reached

We reached a (Tentative) Tentative Agreement on Professional Development, with the exception of financial support for professional development opportunities, which will be addressed during economic negotiations.

Health and Safety

Our positions have gotten much closer, and we have reached agreements on important concerns, including clear protections and information regarding reproductive health, clear reporting after investigations of health and safety threats, and a joint committee to discuss health and safety concerns before problems emerge. In our last counterproposal, we reaffirmed essential protections consistent with other unionized postdoc contracts in NYC, and we are optimistic that we can close the remaining gaps soon to reach agreement on this article.

Appointments and Appointment Security and Discipline and Dismissal

The University presented a package on what they consider paired articles, emphasizing significant compromises. But we still have distance to close on the exact nature and duration of reappointments to ensure that postdocs are not exposed to unfair terms of reappointment that leave them unsure whether they will be reappointed at all, and for how long.

We’ve heard concerns from many researchers that short appointments, especially repeated notices of non-renewal, have been used to create perpetual job insecurity. Our conversation at the table centered around all of the various carve-outs that the University has used, or might use going forward, to subvert the goals of a strong Appointments article. In the coming sessions, we expect that our conversations will center on closing these loopholes in a way that ensures Unit Members can focus on their projects, not whether they will get renewed.

International Researcher Rights

The University countered our proposal on International Researcher Rights. We have reached agreement with the University on the vast majority of this article, securing essential rights like visa flexibility and application assistance for members. We will negotiate the economic components of this article, like covering travel and administrative fees, when we bargain our economic articles.

Union Security + Union Rights and Access

These two articles enable our Union to administer our contract and to represent members. The University’s proposals weaken existing standards for postdocs in the city by taking away critical resources and access from our Union.

The most important factor in our success bargaining a strong contract is the participation of the entire union membership — observe a session, join an action, and help us keep the pressure on. Our next in-person session is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18, 2026, from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM ET. Click here to RSVP if you’d like to attend this or a future session and see the process firsthand!

You can access the full text of these proposals using our online bargaining tracker.

Have questions or feedback? Don’t hesitate to reply to this email — your input strengthens our collective power.

In solidarity,

Jorge Almagro Santiago

On behalf of the UPROR-UAW Bargaining Committee

(Tentative) Tentative Agreements:

Discipline and Dismissal (02/04/2026)

Professional Development (01/14/2026)

UPROR-UAW Proposals:

Appointments and Appointment Security (02/04/2026)

Discipline and Dismissal (02/04/2026)

Health and Safety (01/14/2026)