July 18th, 11:30 AM @ Studebaker (Manhatanville), Room 465
Informal Organizing Committee notes
Your participation in Bargaining is very much appreciated! Join us in person or on our Slack channel to share your opinion/thoughts/concerns.
Take home message – CU Admin doesn’t want to discuss much until we tentatively agreed or propose alternative language to all the articles.
Bargaining starts at 11:58am.
We begin by saying this will be a shorter session and that we’re currently working on a bigger counter-proposal that will encompass everything else. The main two things we’ll present are art. 12 international employees and bathroom equity.
In ART. 12: INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEES – we’re proposing that the university will pay for necessary administrative visa fees, and we’re removing their language that made these reimbursements contingents on the PI having funding
Re: bathroom equity – we will remove our changes in Art 28: WORKSPACE AND MATERIALS if they agree to adding the same language we had before (here) to their miscellaneous side letter.
We also made the point again that we are pending to receive the guidelines regarding their decisions about allowing remote work for postdocs/ARSs – which were mentioned in a previous session.
They said they don’t want to discuss anything until they have a complete offer from us.
They bring up the anti-bullying working group saying that after the Provost announces the final guidelines the group will start meeting likely every other week, and that they want 2 representatives from our unit.
Short is short. We discuss next steps and they’re now caucusing and will come back maybe with counters or with just a date when we meet next
Columbia Admin’s is preventing progress on core bargaining issues
On Monday, August 7th, we will begin voting to authorize a strike in response to the Administration’s inadequate offers for a second contract and their unwillingness to bargain in good faith, including unlawful behavior such as blocking salary raises agreed out of our contract until a new contract is ratified.
A strike authorization vote is a signal to Columbia that we are united and committed to taking whatever collective action is necessary to win a fair contract!
We have won victories in a number of issues:
real recourse from bullying once the new policy is in place;
healthcare emergency fund: central money committed to postdocs/ARSs to help cover unexpected medical expenses;
$1,500 in relocation costs for new postdocs/ARSs;
Fellows are offered $3,000/year to compensate for the lost benefits due to their independent contractor status
But the Administration’s behavior is obstructing progress on key issues including:
fair compensation – including minum salaries that compensate for the high inflation of the last years [ART 5],
🗳️ Mark your Calendar! How to vote starting Monday🗳️
On Monday August 7th you will receive an email with a link to a vote.
As the Bargaining Committee of our union, with the full support of our Organizing Committee, we urge everyone to Vote Yes to authorize us to call strikes if the Administration’s behavior justifies such actions!
You can read the Strike Authorization Vote frequently asked questions here. Don’t hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions and concerns.
In the same week, our postdoc colleagues at Mount Sinai are also initiating a Strike Authorization Vote in order to pressure their own Administration in their negotiations!
We are coordinating with postdoctoral workers that are unionizing across NYC & Princeton and stand in solidarity. We will not stop until we have done our part to improve our university and the research community as a whole!
140 postdocs ARSs rallied last week. They demonstrated their support for an SAV: “If you support a Strike Authorization Vote, raise your hand and say ‘Aye!”
Quick recap from this week’s Bargaining Sessions: 🏃💨 🏃⏱️
The negotiation rollercoaster continues! 🎢
On Monday our bargaining committee presented a comprehensive package for compensation, housing and childcare. It would make any moves on our proposal for compensation contingent on CU Admin offering institutional support to postdocs/ARSs in the form of a Housing Stipend and enhanced childcare support. The administration did not respond.
We won the ability of the union to defend postdocs/ARSs and, hopefully, resolve issues of Intellectual Property & Authorship when they arise. When a worker has a problem related to IP or authorship we will be able to convene a meeting that can become a tool for the union and its members to raise and resolve the issues. The University and any PIs involved in IP/authorship disputes will have to explain their choices, with us as a union on the other side to defend the interests of our workers.
CU Admin is pressuring us to accept a mediator that will run negotiations. This is a power move trying to get us to concede without making any realistic offer. A mediator could be useful if the two parties were close.
Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Bargaining & Organizing Committees.
This Wednesday, over 140 of us gathered in Haven Plaza to send a clear message to Columbia! We do not accept their proposal. We want institutional support for research, living wages, recognition for fellows, protections for our research work, and better childcare benefits – and we are not afraid to authorize a strike to hold the university accountable.
When they said 30-50 people showed up, this is how many were there:
“If you support a Strike Authorization Vote, raise your hand and say ‘Aye!”
A strike authorization vote is a democratic vote whereby union members vote on whether they authorize a strike. It is not a strike. If we vote yes, a strike can be called at a later time by the bargaining committee.
We need YOU to help organize and coordinate so that everyone knows what is happening and gets their voice heard by voting in the SAV! Sign up to help here! and read below.
✊✊🏿✊🏾✊🏻Why do we need a Strike Authorization Vote?
A strike authorization vote is a signal to Columbia that we are serious about our demands, and is a key next step in escalating our pressure to get a new contract!
We have several key victories in our negotiations so far, however,the current overall offer on the table is greatly insufficient.
We presented our demands at the bargaining table, shown strength and determination with events, the petition to the president signed by 600 of us) – but the Columbia administration has not moved on key demands. A next key step to escalate pressure is to hold a strike authorization vote.
🗳️🤔What does a Strike Authorization Vote Mean?
A strike authorization vote is a democratic vote whereby union members vote on whether they authorize that a strike could be called by the bargaining committee. CHECK OUR FAQs TO LEARN MORE
💥💫What do we need for a successful SAV?
We need YOU to help organize and coordinate so that everyone knows what is happening and gets their voice heard by voting in the SAV! Sign up to help here!
Voting will begin on August 7th. This is an all-hands on deck situation – and we need YOU to succeed!
We need people who are not yet members to officially become members: Only current members of the union can vote in an SAV.
We need everyone to help organize their colleagues to vote in the SAV and to know why the bargaining committee and hundreds of active members are voting “Yes”.
One tool we can use in negotiations is to put forward what is called a “supposal” – a package of proposals together in which agreement on one article depends upon agreement in another. This usually involves agreeing to a concession in one area with the assurance that it will leverage a guarantee on another issue. Your committee is considering offering the following package:
Lowering our current proposed salary minimum from $82k to $75k, so long as it is agreed upon:
A childcare stipend of $10k per kid (not per family) will be included, and
A housing stipend of $7.5k will be included (for a total compensation of $82.5k)
Bargaining has reached a critical moment. After months of negotiations and over 15 sessions, the university administration has failed to propose a reasonable offer for our next contract, allowing our last contract to expire on June 30th. Columbia Admin’s current offer is, effectively, a pay cut.
It is now urgent that we increase the pressure on the administration to make real progress in areas like inflation-adjusted salaries, childcare support, equality for fellows, and protections for authorship and intellectual property
JOIN US for a public meeting on July 26th, Wednesday, in Haven Plaza at 5pm to determine our next steps and show Columbia that we demand a fair contract NOW!
Today, a delegation of postdocs and ARSs from Morningside, CUMC, Lamont, and Manhattanville came together to deliver the letter signed by over 600 of us to President Nemat Shafik’s office. This letter makes it clear that we will not accept a contract without fair wages, better childcare benefits, better protections from harassment and bullying, recognition of all workers – and institutional support from the millions of dollars Columbia makes off of our research.
After months of negotiations and weak offers from Columbia, it is time we show the administration that we are serious about improving the working and living conditions of researchers and that we will not stop until we have done our part to improve the university and the science community as a whole!
Bargaining will re-commence next week, and there will be much more work for us to do as a union – and that means work from all of us to see a fair contract – but we hope that our welcome to our new president will help set a new tone at the negotiation table.
See Our Message to the President Below
In addition to the physical delivery of the letter, we followed up with a digital copy for President Shafik, the Board of Trustees, and Columbia’s Bargaining Team. You can read that message, as delivered by Organizing Committee members Elsy El Khoury and Radha Raghuraman, below.
Dear President-Designate Minouche Shafik,
We hope this email finds you well. Attached, you will find an important letter regarding the ongoing negotiations between our union representing Postdoctoral Research Scientists/Scholars/Fellows and Associate Research Scientists/Fellows and the administration of Columbia University. This letter has been endorsed by over 600 members of our unit from various departments at Columbia University.
Our aim is to achieve a fair and equitable collective bargaining agreement that addresses the fundamental rights outlined in the attached letter. We would gladly meet with you to discuss why these goals are crucial for sustaining a competitive and sustainable research mission at Columbia University.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We eagerly anticipate your response and look forward to making meaningful progress during our negotiations.
Sincerely,
Radha Raghuraman & Elsy El Khoury, on behalf of Columbia Postdoctoral Workers, UAW Local 4100
During the last week of June we had two lengthy bargaining sessions (read a comprehensive report from the 13th (June 29) and the 14th (June 30) sessions). In the meantime, here’s a brief rundown of what’s happened, what’s coming up, and what we can do together to ensure a strong and fair contract.
😡 CU BLOCKING SALARY RAISES 😡
The 2.5% annual raise that all postdocs and ARS enjoyed in the past years was only guaranteed because of our union contract: before our 2020 union contract,there were no guaranteed raises.
We continue fighting for minimums and annual increases in negotiations that allow every postdoc/ARS to live in NYC.
CU’s position: even if postdocs/ARSs agree on a raise with their PIs, at an individual level, Columbia is not required to process their raise until we negotiate a contract. If this is your case, please contact us here!
This is a serious misinterpretation of our contract that shows that they are trying to push us to accept a contract which is, effectively, a pay cut (their offer of $63.6k for a starting postdoc is equivalent to $54,324.21 in 2020 dollars).
How Can We Respond?: We all need to inform all postdocs/ARSs that Columbia is legally obligated to maintain the status quo and honor our contract. Article 5 Section 2 (on page 5) means they have to allow any raises beyond the minimums and mandatory raises being negotiated.
You can spread the word and download the attached poster to hang up in common areas where all postdocs/ARSs can see.
💥WINNING A FAIR CONTRACT! 💥DELIVERY OF OPEN LETTER TO COLUMBIA’S NEW PRESIDENT:
In it, we inform them that we will not accept a contract without fair wages, better childcare benefits, better protections from harassment and bullying – and not without institutional support from the millions of dollars Columbia makes off of our research.
For more reports on bargaining, and to make sure you stay up-to-date, be sure to read the bargaining reports here andjoin our Slack channel for a firsthand account from postdocs/ARSs who attended the sessions. It’s the best way to stay informed and engaged.
Together, we will WIN a fair contract! ✊
In Solidarity,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Bargaining and Organizing Committee
June 30th, 12:00 PM @ Hammer Building (CUMC), Room LL-110
Informal Organizing Committee notes
Your participation in Bargaining is very much appreciated! Join us in person or on our Slack channel to share your opinion/thoughts/concerns.
Take home message – After a long day CU Admin gave us a COMPLETE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT that fell short of addressing the needs of Columbia’s postdocs/ARSs. Not only are the minimum salaries completely inadequate ($63,600 for postdocs and $70,066 for ARSs), but they also disregarded our request for additional economic support from Columbia’s Central Money, rather than relying solely on research grants. We adjourned the session around 8:30 PM, with most of our members having already left. Negotiations will resume after the 4th of July break.
Just a reminder, during yesterday’s session, CU Admin made some positive moves in non-economic areas with regards to their offer:
CU Admin agreed to include a definition of bullying and power-based harassment. They also acknowledged that once the new policy related to bullying and power-based harassment is officially approved, it will be subject to the grievance procedure. This is a significant victory as it addresses a longstanding concern from our previous contract negotiations.
They agreed to make changes to the Definition of Recognition & Appointments, which determines who qualifies as a postdoc and ARS covered by the union contract. The definition will be based specifically on the 2022 Faculty Handbook. This ensures that CU Admin cannot unilaterally change this definition without our consent, something they have previously done.
Regarding Postdoctoral Research Fellows, they did not accept our demands as states but returned with a counter offer. They are offering a lump sum of $3,000 per year for individuals who switch from Postdoc Researcher to Postdoc Fellow. Additionally, they are proposing a meeting with every fellow before accepting an extramural fellowship to discuss any changes in benefits. We had requested that meeting to include a discussion of the option to remain as employees with full benefits. Their offer doesn’t completely address the issue, but it is still a positive outcome.
Overall, we made some progress in certain non-economic articles, and these wins should be celebrated.
Review CU Admin package
At 12:31 PM, CU Admin entered the room, and we began reviewing the package they provided us yesterday. We agreed to their proposed changes in the Recognition section, but we still need to discuss the Appointments article further.
We also reached an agreement on their suggested changes in the Side Letter regarding Bullying.
At 12:54 PM, we took a caucus to regroup and discuss internally.
We reconvened at 2:53 PM, and during that session, we presented an alternative language for Article 12, Section 10 (ART 12: INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEES). Our changes specifically address the costs that postdocs/ARSs incur to maintain their visa status. CU Admin had some questions about Visa Status, DS-2019, and related matters.
Correct the Record! While we have not agreed to all non-economics we want to discuss economics:
We are also working to ensure that CU does not misinterpret our stance on the Tentative Agreement for non-economic topics. In their package, they write that we were open to a Tentative Agreement on all non-economic matters, but we clarify that we only agreed to specific language changes. This approach is unconventional, as an article is either fully Tentatively agreed upon or not. CU Admin acknowledges this point.
Despite CU’s belief that most of the non-economic topics do not require further discussion, we have repeatedly requested them to address compensation. However, they insist on resolving minor issues before providing a different compensation number.
Our bargaining committee (BC) team has stressed the importance of discussing compensation regardless of whether the non-economic discussions are concluded. We have repeatedly emphasized that non-economic matters should not impact compensation, but CU Admin continues to disagree with us on this point.
At 3:21 PM, CU Admin requested a caucus.
CU’s Admin Offer of Settlement
At 5:55 PM, CU Admin invited us to their room to present an offer of settlement. They clarified that the offer doesn’t need to be final and can be adjusted as needed.
For fellows, they propose a one-time lump-sum payment of $3,000 to compensate for lost benefits.
For existing employees, they offer annual increases of 3% in the first year and 2.75% in the following three years. The minimums will also increase by 2% each year.
They presented a table illustrating pay scales with the increased minimums and experience-based annual raises. Postdoc experience accrued before the contract is signed will not count towards the pay scale (e.g a 4th year postdoc will be subject to the new minimums under the new contract, and not the 4th year pay-scale minimum).
Regarding international employees, postdocs have the right to request their Principal Investigator (PI) to cover reimbursement of administrative fees and travel expenses related to visa stamp renewals. It’s important to note that these reimbursements are subject to the availability of funds and the discretion of the PI. Decisions regarding eligibility for reimbursement are not grievable.
CU Admin emphasizes that this offer reflects a serious effort on their part to reach an agreement.
Correcting the record again
We noted that CU Admin once again included articles in their offer as tentative agreements, even though we have not tentatively agreed on them (wrong TAs in Appointments, Discharge and Discipline, Professional Development, Workspace and materials and Miscellaneous (bathroom equity). While they verbally acknowledged our non-agreement, their written documentation still states otherwise. To address this discrepancy and ensure a clear record, we sent an email at 8:02 PM, by our UAW servicing representative, requesting written clarification and correction of the official record. [READ THE EMAIL BELOW]
At 8:06 PM, the bargaining committee (consisting of Cora, Thiago, and Reisy at this point) reiterated that there was no tentative agreement reached regarding the aforementioned articles/sections. They expressed the desire to adjourn the session for the day, as most participants had already left.
The bargaining committee informed CU Admin that there are still numerous unresolved issues, including the unreasonable economic offer presented earlier in the day. They emphasized that, from this point forward, the university must maintain the status quo while negotiations continue.
The bargaining committee will communicate new dates for the next bargaining sessions on Monday, and the current session was officially adjourned.
June 29th, 10:30 AM @ Studebaker, Room 469 Informal Organizing Committee notes
Your participation in Bargaining is very much appreciated! Join us in person or on our Slack channel to share your opinion/thoughts/concerns.
Take home message – CU Admin continues to delay compensation discussion. They do not want to include Child care benefits in our contract. They also don’t want to include any protections to authorship and Intellectual Property resulting from our work. During this session CU Admin wanted us to finalize non-economics before discussing economics so we clarified our position on all pending issues. They gave us an updated non-economic offer by the end of the session.
The CU Admin arrived at 10:45 AM. First topic of discussion: Childcare benefits
Childcare
CU Admin, after reiterating their commitment to childcare for all officers, put forward their position: the current child care benefit will be raised from 4000$ to $5000, maintaining it as a non-taxable benefit. But, this won’t go into our contract (which means they can change it at any point as they did with retirement contributions in 2020).
CU Admin team also continues explaining that this benefit has become expensive for the university because recent IRS rule changes made more Officers eligible by raising the maximum allowed income to receive this benefit.
We are requesting that childcare benefits be provided per kid, not per family. This is more fair because it does not place a higher burden on families with more kids and we have seen other researchers with similar job duties to us secure such a benefit, e.g Graduate Student Workers.
We made the point that because postdocs/ARSs frequently need to work after hours or on weekends our childcare cost is higher than for other Officers. Also we are at the lowest pay level for all Officers of Research at CU. We further made the point that childcare disproportionately affects women and in many cases forces them to rethink staying in academic research, which could be contributing to the gender gap seen in tenured faculty at CU.
CU Admin argues that the gender gap among Faculty at Columbia is not that bad…
[For additional info, our BC member who is defending the need to have higher childcare and is a mom herself, had to bring her kid to the session and will need to leave the session earlier to pick up her other kid because she doesn’t have childcare support.]
As per Columbia’s own numbers women represent just 30.2% of tenured faculty.
Compensation
CU Admin says again that in principle, every issue we bring up is valid, and that there is flexibility in some economic areas of the contract, but the base salary that we proposed is unreasonable. The Faculty members in CU Admin team said that with our proposed salary they will have to stop hiring because there is no money for postdocs/ARSs.
We reinstate again that as we have said many times our minimum salaries can move if we see movement in other economic areas of the contract. We want to see more commitment on the table from Columbia’s Central Money, not research grants, to support postdocs/ARSs expenses (in the form of childcare, housing stipends, healthcare benefits and financial support for maintaining legal status in the U.S)
We also explained the problems with their current offer which has no consideration for experience based raises.
We agreed to take a break at 11:57am.
We reconvened at 3:42pm. For the rest of the afternoon we discussed outstanding non-economic issues:
Recognition
In the current contract, the university recognizes union member eligibility as defined in the “current faculty handbook”, which is ambiguous and subject to change at any time. This recently happened when the University removed postdocs from the Law and Journalism schools from our union.
We had concerns about what “current faculty handbook” constitutes: what is “current?” What if it is changed? We would like to verify that there is a locked-in version such that CU Admin can’t change at will the composition of our unit.
Admin will discuss this.
Fellows
CU Admin communicated to us in previous sessions that employment status of fellows varies — some terms are subject to the terms of the fellowship and some are at the discretion of the university.
We ask whether CU Admin would be open to add to our contract a meeting with members who receive a Fellowship in which the university clearly outlines any changes to benefits/compensation that would arise from them accepting that fellowship. This meeting would allow postdocs to be better informed before accepting fellowships and give them a platform to express their needs and receive commitments from the university to either keep them as employees or compensate them for any lost benefits.
Both sides agree that transparency is the ultimate goal here, so that postdocs understand what is at stake in their employment status when they accept a position.
Admin wants to know what is at stake in such a meeting.
Union maintains that if you lose a benefit, you should not lose out on potential compensation — transparency, yes, but also equality. The goal of such a meeting would be to achieve both transparency and equality — to find an arrangement that would ameliorate the loss of benefits seen by fellows. This is an idea to float to see how open the uni would be to this as an alternative.
Admin says that Columbia’s Zuckerman Institute does something similar, such as “top-ups” to reach equity within a department. Sometimes these achieve commensurate compensation, but not always.
CU Admin will consider this benefit issue and return to us
Discharge
In response to CU Admin the Union suggests a clause to be included which spells out specific examples of misconduct that warrant the discharge (firing) of postdocs/ARS.
Admin will take this into consideration
Internationals
Admin is not comfortable with having a hardship fund for just internationals, “it’s a hard no”.
We have expressed several times that if the University wants to keep at their discretion the duration and type of Visas offered to postdocs/ARSs, there has to be a mechanism by which Internationals don’t have an added economic burden based on the university’s decision. It’s not uncommon that a postdoc/ARS is forced to go back to their home country and pay Visa fees yearly (which can add up to several thousands of dollars per renewal) just because the administrators decide to give one year visas.
We will propose alternative language that does not demand a dedicated fund, per se, but which ensures that Internationals are not economically penalized by maintaining their immigration status.
Professional Development
Union proposes to make some changes in Section 2, regarding authorship rights: postdocs/ARSs ‘shall have rights […] in keeping with academic norms’ – this is already in UConn postdoc contract and has been Tentatively Agreed by Mt Sinai Administration in their postdoc contract.
Admin will discuss
Workspace and Materials – Misc
Regarding bathroom equity — We asked whether CU Admin would be open to move the protections regarding gender neutral bathrooms to be included as part of the proposed DEI working group.
Admin will discuss
Bullying
The Union has included the definition of bullying that our members along with Faculty, Grad Student Workers, and Admin worked hard to agree upon. It seems the admin only wants to include a link, which means they could change the definition at their discretion.
They will discuss and return
IP
We reinstate that current Columbia IP Policies deny the voice of researchers — admin requested testimony from postdocs/ARSs, we provided them and they revealed what we claimed they would:
The University does not even honor its own policies, but puts preference on financial commitments with outside parties. This is contrary to academic freedom.
For example, The Columbia Center for Iranian Studies (CCIS) flagship project, The Encyclopedia Iranica, will be replaced by a private foundation TOMORROW.
The ARS and other researchers at CCIS who have worked on this project for years have lost all property and control over their research as a result. It is clear that we need more protections for the work we do at the University as it’s critical to our career.
CU admin has refused to even discuss IP with us.
We hand them a presentation prepared by our BC with a host of simple suggestions, modeled after policies currently in place at other institutions.
We are in conversation with researchers in other institutions, and are aware of successes at places such as MIT in assuring greater equality in IP/authorship rights and know such changes are possible in healthy negotiations.
Admin understands our position as being one of disagreement, which is within our rights, but they are unwilling to change IP policy in the context of a labor agreement. They believe it is the jurisdiction of a greater body which includes, but not exclusive to, representatives from the university and ourselves. They believe that is the appropriate avenue — not a union contract.
Our perspective is that these problems require solutions, and the solutions are possible here and now. Our perspective is that others have reached agreements this way. We are open to other paths, but CU Admin can’t cut off the discussion.
Admin insists it’s an academic issue at heart — “authorship is academic.” and as such they are not legally obligated to discuss it with us.
We insist that it is a subject of working conditions — what happens to someone’s work — and how someone’s work is handled very much affects our work and career.
Around 5:30 PM we informed CU Admin that many members of our team will have to break to set up for the Membership Meeting but three members of our bargaining team will stay to receive and hopefully report back from CU Admin counter offer.
Last week, we had two lengthy bargaining sessions, and we’re currently working on a comprehensive report which will be shared with you soon. Stay tuned!
In the meantime, join our Slack channel for a firsthand account from postdocs/ARSs who attended the sessions. It’s a great way to stay informed and engaged.
🤔 Wondering why our contract expired?
At 6:31 PM on Friday (last day of our contract) Columbia’s offer for settlement didn’t meet our demands (eg. only $63,600 for the new minimum salary).
Remember, all union members will have the chance to vote on Columbia’s offer before it gets established!
We think more negotiations are needed to reach a fair contract that a majority of members will support.
😌Rest assured, our working conditions remain unchanged.
Columbia is required to maintain the status quo: this means they are required to maintain the same wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment for all of us while we continue bargaining negotiations, and until an agreement is reached.
During this period, Columbia is not required to go to arbitration: Any contract violations will need to be addressed through the initial grievance steps only.
Any grievances filed before our contract expired, can still go to arbitration.
It has come to our attention that some researchers have been told that salary raises agreed upon with their PIs cannot be implemented until a new contract is ratified. This is incorrect! We have taken action to rectify this issue by filing grievances and an Unfair Labor Practice charge.
Please remember, the contract we are negotiating is meant to establish minimums, therefore, as stated in Article 5 (“Compensation”), Section 9 of our CBA, compensation cannot be reduced solely because of the contract.
If you’ve been informed that any issues concerning your working conditions cannot be resolved until a new contract is ratified, please contact us here!
💥💥💥What’s next?
We discussed plans at our last membership meeting to get Columbia’s administration to agree to a fair contract. Keep an eye out for further communications!
Yesterday, members held a pivotal and exciting meeting in preparation for our contract’s expiration – and deciding what comes next. Details from the meeting and what it means for all of us will be forthcoming in another email, but right now, we need help from YOU specifically to stand up for a better contract!
Can you take three minutes to join hundreds of your colleagues and sign the petition in support of our core demands?
This petition and the letter attached to it will be delivered to President-Designate Minouche Shafik and the Trustees of Columbia University next week, and while hundreds have signed on, it looks like you haven’t had the chance. You can read the full letter here or follow the link on the Google Form as well, and if you have any questions or concerns, just reply to this email.
As a reminder, these demands were formed democratically by the majority of postdocs and ARSs, who, through bargaining surveys, membership meetings, one-on-one conversations, and attending bargaining sessions, have made it clear to the university that we will not settle for a contract that leaves researchers empty-handed. These union members have fought long and hard for your rights – but they need your support. Together, we not only have the power to change Columbia for the better, but to send a ripple of progress throughout academia. All it takes from you is to raise your voice to join the chorus.
