Bargaining update and response to the University’s communications

”…[T]he union’s negotiating committee has proposed an exorbitant package of economic demands which are far out of step with the collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) that postdocs represented by the same union agreed to earlier at Mt. Sinai and Weill-Cornell. Until now, the union has repeatedly claimed it is looking to the Mt. Sinai and Weill-Cornell agreements as precedent for the Rockefeller agreement.”

It is true that we regularly reference Mount Sinai and Weill Cornell – because Rockefeller has repeatedly proposed language and standards that fall below those same contracts.

There is no reason for Rockefeller to provide fewer rights and protections than its peers, which costs them nothing. But using Mt. Sinai and Weill Cornell as benchmarks for non-economic provisions does not mean their contracts should serve as a cap on salaries, benefits, or other economic terms.

“Rockefeller already provides a salary and benefits package that is comparable to—and in most cases substantially better than—those offered by peer institutions. Despite this, the union is demanding contract terms that are far beyond industry norms and would be economically irresponsible, including more than a 27% increase to the postdoctoral minimum salary, more than a 44% increase to the research associate minimum salary, and major expansions to healthcare, retirement, and other benefits that exceed the generous benefits Rockefeller already provides and is well above the agreements the union itself accepted at Weill Cornell and Mount Sinai.”

Our proposed percentage increases to minimums are comparable to the percentage increases achieved at both Weill Cornell and Mount Sinai. These agreements additionally contain large compensation increases with experience, something Rockefeller does not provide. This makes the difference from those institutes even more pronounced. See the chart below for a comparison of negotiated wage increases from Mount Sinai, Weill Cornell Medicine, and Columbia.

Our numbers are not arbitrary demands. They are matched to the federal General Schedule for the New York City area, which provides locality-adjusted pay scales for doctoral-level research positions. We provided a reasonable initial proposal, and Rockefeller’s framing of these proposals as “exorbitant” and “out of step” is a disingenuous attempt to undervalue the work of postdocs, which has long been undercompensated relative to our value and expertise.

“The union’s demands, if enacted, would impose extraordinary new costs on the University and its laboratories at a time of growing financial stress and uncertainty across biomedical research institutions nationwide.”

While many of us are funded by federal research funding, other institutions with greater dependency on these sources and significantly harsher financial difficulties, like Weill Cornell, have been able to agree to and sustain significant economic improvements on par with what we are proposing.

“We proposed that the parties should meet for three days in a row in July in marathon sessions… It is customary to meet to bargain for back-to-back days as parties near the end of negotiations, particularly for a first contract. The University proposed that the union meet with us on July 14, 15 and 16 or July 21, 22 and 23. The union, so far, has not agreed to meet on either of those back-to-back days.”

Rockefeller has refused to schedule any sessions between May and July 14, meaning we will be unable to bargain with them for nearly two months this summer, by which point we will have been negotiating for 16 months.

Bargaining on consecutive days can be useful in the end stages of bargaining, when there are fewer outstanding items remaining on the table. However, with many significant economic and non-economic issues still unresolved, we need consistent sessions to make meaningful progress while maintaining regular consultation with Unit Members.

Since Rockefeller sent their email, we have proposed to the University bargaining for 4 to 5 hour periods on at least 5 additional dates.

“The University remains committed to bargaining in good faith and believes the union must present a more realistic economic proposal to allow us to respond effectively to move the negotiations forward. We, and the other members of our committee and the University, remain committed to pursuing a fair and responsible resolution and will continue to keep you informed as negotiations progress.”

Rockefeller hopes we will bargain against ourselves. Our proposals are the product of extensive conversations with postdocs and research associates, careful analysis of peer institutions and compensation benchmarks, and more than a year of feedback from Unit Members.

Throughout bargaining, we have repeatedly explained that our role is to bring Unit Members’ priorities to the table. When Rockefeller dismisses these proposals as “unrealistic” without meaningfully engaging with them, it is outright dismissing the voices of the researchers who identified these needs and asked us to fight for them.