Bargaining Committee Vacancy Election

June 22th, 10:30 AM @ Hammer, Room LL-210

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 – We have submitted an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (Federal entity that mediates employee-employer relations). The reason behind this complaint is our belief that CU (the employer or management) is not engaging in good faith bargaining. While we have noticed a slight improvement in CU’s willingness to negotiate more honestly, it remains uncertain whether this will be enough to reach a fair agreement by June 30 or continue bargainig pass that date.

The CU Admin arrived at 11:05 am. To kick off the session, we requested written confirmation of the verbal offers they discussed in the last session. These offers covered Childcare, Discipline and Discharge, Bullying, and Power-based Harassment.

The CU Admin took a break to consider articles where they believed agreement was possible.

At 12:56 pm, the CU Admin returned with an updated counter-proposal package labeled “REVISED OFFER SETTLEMENT” (details below).

After a lunch break and caucus at 1:10 pm, we shared our ECONOMIC PACKAGE. We made sure to simplify the language in our Compensation Article, as the CU Admin found it confusing in the previous session. Our aim was to provide clarity while maintaining our demands.

At 4:24 pm, we regrouped and asked for clarification regarding their Offer of Settlement.

Columbia Offer of Settlement: 

Here are the changes in the CU administration’s offer, along with some of the clarifications we received from them:

ARTICLE 2: APPOINTMENTS – 

• In regard to our suggestion that the University should assist new postdocs/ARSs in connecting with the Union, the administration has proposed adding Section 5: 9) “a URL for union office contact.” This addition would be similar to what other unions have implemented under “Union Officer Contracts.”
  • The administration has put forward this offer with the condition that we withdraw our request for them to provide new employees with a Union package. They argue that fulfilling this request may potentially lead to legal complications.

Miscellaneous in relation to ARTICLE 3: BENEFITS – 

• In response to our inquiry about the university policy regarding relocation reimbursement, the administration has proposed that relocation be treated as a payment not tied to any specific policy. 
  • This represents a potential improvement compared to our previous discussions. However, it’s important to note that in previous sessions, the administration expressed the expectation that research grants would cover these expenses.
• However, the administration has maintained the Hardship Fund at $250,000 for the duration of the Agreement, which would only cover 50 workers over a span of 5 years (the contract length they are proposing). Additionally, the administration retains full control over the fund through the Office of Public Affairs (OPA).
• Additionally, the administration does not agree to our request that any changes to our benefit package must be negotiated with us. As it stands, they reserve the right to modify our benefits at their discretion, as they did with the retirement contribution in 2021.

ARTICLE 7: DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE – 

• For Discharge and Discipline, they have offered that the University meets with the employee and the union for an interview prior to final discharge, except for cases of “alleged misconduct”. We requested that they change their language “except for cases of gross misconduct” to ensure that postdocs/ARSs have some recourse before the university acts to discharge them, and that we can resolve issues before harm is done. This is especially important since internationals on Visas will need to leave the country after discharge.
  • They did not agree to include gross misconduct but offered us to write down the examples of dangerous behaviours in which the university could process the discharge before the proposed investigatory interview: theft, destruction of property, sexual assault. 

ARTICLE 9: GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION – 

• CU Admin accepted one of the arbitrators we proposed which meant we reached a tentative agreement with the 3 arbitrators who would oversee the enforcement of our contract. 
• We expressed that we have not been convinced that we need to increase the length of the Step 3 grievance process. Currently, it takes 30 calendar days to complete, but the administration has suggested extending it to 30 working days. This change raises concerns, especially for those of us on visas who may be required to leave the country before the appeal process is finished.

ARTICLE 12: INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEES – 

• In Section 2 they accepted our concept of informing the union when a postdoc/ARSs is stuck out of the US for Visa related issues: “Where possible, the University will notify the Union.”
• However, in Section 9, the administration is still rejecting our proposed language that states “The University will make best efforts to consult with the employee to provide a mutually beneficial Visa arrangement.” Additionally, they are also refusing to establish a fund to cover visa expenses for international individuals.
  • We firmly believe that to demonstrate their commitment to supporting us in managing the challenges and financial burdens associated with Visa requirements there are two possible approaches. Firstly, they could agree to provide us with Visas that are advantageous to our situation, reducing the need for frequent travel and minimizing associated fees for Visa renewal. Alternatively, if they wish to retain the authority to determine our Visas based on the University’s interests, we propose that they assist us in covering the expenses related to those Visas.

Side Letter on ABUSIVE OR INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOR AS PROHIBITED CONDUCT 

• The CU Admin has agreed that once the Anti-bullying policy becomes official, postdocs who experience power-based harassment and are dissatisfied with the university’s process can proceed to arbitration and receive protection under our Union and the contract. This language aligns with what SWC-UAW 2710, representing Grad Student Workers at Columbia, achieved in their contract.
  • Although we appreciate the inclusion of the right to arbitration for a policy we have been advocating for since 2019, we still request the incorporation of the bullying definition created by the university-wide working group (with our members’ work) and approved by the Provost in February. 
  • Despite Columbia Admin providing the link to the Anti-bullying Initiative in our contract: https://provost.columbia.edu/content/columbia-anti-bullving-initiative, we are concerned that it may allow for changes to the definition that our members worked tirelessly to establish.

After asking questions about their package we brought up some of the topics in which we think we are far apart: 

Discussion on equality for Fellows: 

We have confirmed with several Fellows on T32s at Mount Sinai that they receive W2, and are considered employees. We offered CU Admin that Fellows from Mt. Sinai will be happy to come to our negotiations to testify. We also reiterated our request for information, which has been ignored so far, as to why Columbia does not want to consider Fellows to be employees and receive full benefits. 

After the session the Administration sent us the following email stating clearly in our opinion that is not that they can’t recognize Fellows as employees, it’s just that they don’t want to: 

Email From Columbia’s Labor Relations:

After getting an update about yesterday’s session, I wanted to clear up some possible confusion as it to relates to Postdoctoral Fellows and Postdoctoral Scholars and Scientists.  It is not the University’s bargaining position that Postdoctoral Fellows at some point cannot transition from a fellowship to be an employee. Rather, the University’s position in response to your proposal is that it will not agree nor be restricted to classifying all Postdoctoral Fellows as employees unless the granting agency strictly prohibits it. The University is permitted to exercise its managerial rights which grants the University certain decision-making authority in areas such as employee classification, compensation, and benefits not restricted by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.  Furthermore, it’s important to note that the decision is not solely determined by the preference of the University. There are legal and regulatory considerations involved, and the University needs to ensure compliance with applicable laws and guidelines. Likewise, we are currently classifying Postdoctoral Fellows consistent with how other comparable institutions also treat Postdoctoral Fellows as we have noted at bargaining sessions. The University is open to engaging in constructive dialogue on these matters and has demonstrated our willingness to work on these matters. I have included links for items that we have shared during our negotiation sessions.

• https://hcsra.sph.harvard.edu/news/clarification-nih-policies-nrsa-stipends-compensation-and-other-income 
• https://icahn.mssm.edu/education/postdoc/funding
• https://postdocs.mit.edu/postdoctoral-position/defining-postdoc-fellows-and-associates

If you need any additional relevant information as it relates to the RFI to answer your questions, please let me know.

Discussion on the economic framework

After discussing their Offer of Settlement we reinstated OUR framework to settle a contract. It  needs to include more movement on their side in economic articles: 

• increases in minimum salaries that compensate for the Inflation of the last three years 
• cost of living adjustments that protect us from inflation going forward
• experience based raises which help retain talent
• in combination with a housing stipend and childcare from institutional money. 

As we have repeated several times, if we are going to adjust our proposal on salaries, we need to see some movement in the housing stipend and childcare.

CU Admin responded that our offer is still unreasonable. 

We reiterated that in the current status Columbia is making profit from research, growing its endowment, generating operating surplus year after year, instead of supporting research and workers as other institutions in the city do (with subsidized housing or more affordable healthcare). It is Columbia’s core mission to use resources to support research and struggling postdocs/ARSs.  

Unfair Labor Practice

Towards the end of the session we informed them that we filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) with the National Labor Relations Board (Federal entity that mediates employee-employer relations) because we believe CU is not bargaining in good faith! And this behavior is illegal (see below for details).

Our case in the Unfair Labor Practice:

• CU Admin has not put any reasonable proposals on the table, and is “delaying mandatory subjects of bargaining like compensation” (giving us a proposal only a month after bargaining)
• It has continued to make assertions – that the contract is already ‘good enough.’. 
• Additionally CU Admin unilaterally withheld salary increases that postdocs have already agreed with their PIs out of the contract until a new contract is ratified. REACH OUT IF THIS IS YOUR SITUATION!
• From the ULP – “In some cases it has withdrawn previously offered salary increases, and has been communicating to several bargaining unit members that their salary increases will depend on when the contract is ratified.“
• From the ULP – “The Employer has also failed to provide the Union with relevant information requests it has submitted since the commencement of negotiations. In some instances, the University’s responses are deficient.“

Their response: 

• CU Admin expressed their disappointment that we are conducting ourselves like this (we also are disappointed on how they conduct themselves…). And explained their lack of movement: 

• In non economic issues – they said that they are protecting the University, and that “they need to educate us on how the University works”. 
  • To be honest, the exact opposite is true! Our proposals are the ones actually protecting the University and the integrity of research. A safe environment without power-based harassment, rules and guidelines on authorship and IP, timely appointments and reappointments, equity and inclusion, would only make our workplace more productive, and grease the wheels of research! That is what we are advocating for.

• In economics issues – they reply that if our offer became true, there would be NO postdocs or ARSs, and that no one could afford to higher them. They insisted that they are being reasonable with their offer, and that if we don’t like Columbia’s offers we can go to another institution…
  • We agreed that if all we are requesting comes just from research grants it’ll be difficult to hire postdocs/ARSs. That is why we are asking for more institutional support in the form of a housing stipend, healthcare fund, childcare and a lump sum for cost of living adjustments. 
  • We know that other institutions in the city offer their postdocs more support with subsidized housing, healthcare and childcare benefits. Columbia is still not providing a reasonable compensation package at the moment.

At  6:38 PM the session ends. 

The ULP has made CU Admin offer us two sessions the week after to try to reach an agreement. In addition, following the session they sent us an email finally stating clearly in our opinion that is not that they can’t recognize Fellows as employees, it’s just that they don’t want to [See above]

---

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the notes from the other sessions!

Follow our next emails with updates on future steps and debriefing sessions!!

Reach out to us to get involved!

Follow us on social media! Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and join our and Slack​.

Share this info with your friends and colleagues!

June 14th, 10:30 AM @ Hammer, Room LL-106

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 is saying that they have made a “really good proposal” and that their proposal is the only path to a contract. The only place where CU Admin thinks there is room for some movement is childcare, discipline/discharge, and harassment. CU Admin wants us to agree to their framework in order to get a contract! That means dropping all of our non-economics, and agreeing that only the three items (childcare, discharge, harassment) would be considered.

CU Administration arrives at 10:55 AM. We distributed our CPW-061423_ECONOMIC PROPOSALS

CU Admin opens stating that they have made — what they see as — a comprehensive offer that for them is the framework to reach an agreement before June 30th. They are disappointed that we are not accommodating them!!! They indicate that from all of our asks, they are looking at:

• Childcare – they are discussing changes for all Officers (not just postdocs/ARSs) and it’s not clear that will be finalized before June 30 therefore not included in our contract. 
• Discipline and Discharge
• Bullying and Harassment
• They reiterate that the contract shouldnt be changed too much (edited) 

Our Bargaining Committee emphasizes our disappointment with CU Admin behavior. The delay to start bargaining (we have been trying to start since January), them not allowing hybrid sessions, the inability of CU Admin to understand our working conditions, and the challenges we face.

We have proposals that would allow Postdocs/ARSs to live with dignity, with higher salaries and benefit packages, to be able to form and raise a family, to curb the abuse of power when it comes to power based harassment, authorship and IP. We are the ones that are disappointed that they are not engaging more seriously with our proposals. 

We explain that the status quo is not OK for postdocs and ARSs. Just maintaining the status quo does not address the issues that we are experiencing. If they don’t like the proposals that we are putting forward, they can counter with different language that would solve the problems!

The Bargaining Committee presented the language we proposed for Compensation: 

ARTICLE 5: COMPENSATION

Next our Bargaining Committee presents the main components of our economics proposal:

• To prevent our salaries falling behind with inflation – An annual increase for salary minimums (3.5%), with a lump sum Cost of living adjustment (COLA) that would kick in only if inflation is high – over 3.5% – for that year (Inflation minus 3.5%). 
• To reward experience and retain talent – An experience based salary scale (3.5%) for each year of experience. 
• We have lowered our minimum salary demand from $90k for a first year postdoc to $82k, but reinstate that we need more institutional support with our proposed housing stipend of $7,500/year.

These three pillars would ensure that our salaries stay competitive year after year, that our experience is reflected in our salaries without losing buying power due to inflation. Of course all these are up for negotiation, but that is the structure we have proposed.

• They asked us some clarifying questions about our proposal. 
• They also want us to talk about the differences between Postdocs and ARSs. They are saying that our proposal looks like we are trying to eliminate the postdoc position because we are suggesting one payscale based on years of experience.
• We are reiterating that Article 2 defines the titles for Postdocs and ARS and we are not removing those classifications but that we are willing to rewrite our proposal. 

CU Admin pushed back on our minimum salaries bringing up the market again: they think that the market for a postdoc is much lower than what we propose, and that $63,000 is very reasonable compared to other places in NYC

We are bringing up the fact that:

• In most of the other institutions in NYC postdocs have much better benefits when it comes to housing, healthcare and childcare.
• Their offer is not even keeping up with inflation: $60k in 2020, is $70k in 2023 when adjusted for inflation. $63k is just a pay cut!

They think that their current salaries are attractive and that they can still hire talented individuals with $60k! 

CU Admin is saying that we have to be realistic. For the first time they implied that they might have more money to offer, but not too much higher than $63,000.

Next Michael Mauro, a postdoc in the department of Pathology and Cell Biology gives a testimony on compensation. Our compensation should be in line with what we are worth! [READ THE FULL TESTIMONY HERE] 

We emphasized that we need institutional support. We want a housing stipend from institutional money to relieve research budgets. CU Admin reiterates that all money will come from the lab and the grants. ‘That is the way it is. That is the way it will be!’

CU Admin wants to discuss some of our non-economic proposals from June 8th:

ARTICLE 1: RECOGNITION – Who is a Postdoc and an ARS is currently defined in the Faculty Handbook. We want this reference to be removed so that they cannot remove workers from our unit without consulting us. They are adamant that they want to keep the discretion to change the definition of a Postdoc and/or Associate Researcher

ARTICLE 2: APPOINTMENTS: 

• Appointment Letter – They agree to add a URL link on the appointments letter with our contact information if we reach an agreement on ARTICLE 28 (by removing our proposal that the university gives new postdocs/ARSs and Union Package). 

• Fellows – As of today a Fellow is classified as an independent contractor unless their situation forces recognition as an employee which restores all benefits (this happens when the person needs to be promoted to ARS or requires to change to an H1B Visa). In many cases the Fellowship will allow for employee status from the beginning but Columbia only does that when forced by outside requirements. 

Our language aims to flip this situation such that the default is to classify Fellows as employees unless the Funding Agency forbids. We also requested information from Columbia regarding this topic which they have not provided yet.  

CU Admin just insists that they don’t want/can’t make fellow employees with an array of what seems contradictory and/or unclear statements. They said that Fellowships are helping Postdoc’s CVs, that are a benefit primarily for the postdoc and that if a PI wants they can top off the salary of the Fellow to make up for losses. 

The back and forth got heated and we broke for a caucus. 

ARTICLE 12: INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEES – We explained that if they don’t want to agree to offer a mutually beneficial Visa for the postdoc/ARSs and the University (as opposed to benefit just Columbia) an International Employees Assistance Fund would be great help for international postdocs/ARSs that have to spend a lot of money on visa renewals. 

• CU Admin: respond that while they appreciate the sentiment, and they are not planning to offer it right now. They offer a minor concession on Section 2, Article 12 Internationals (an Employee is unable to return to the United States the University shall notify the Union) to close the article without the International Fund

ARTICLE 24: UNION ACCESS, RIGHTS AND ACTIVITIES – They offer to increase the time an incoming postdoc can take to meet with the union for orientation from 15 mins to half hour despite we did not point this out as an issue. They also offer to include a URL on the employment letter as explained above in ART 2: APPOINTMENTS.

ARTICLE 7: DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE – They propose a new Section: In cases of discharge, except those of alleged misconduct, if requested by union and if possible the parties would meet with the employee and conduct an investigatory interview prior to final discharge employment. We asked a few clarifying questions about it and requested to see the language in a written form. 

The session ended at 6:23 PM. The next session will be Thursday June 22nd at 10:30 AM on CUMC.

---

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the notes from the other sessions!

Follow our next emails with updates on future steps and debriefing sessions!!

Reach out to us to get involved!

Follow us on social media! Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and join our and Slack​.

Share this info with your friends and colleagues!

June 12th, 10:30 AM @ Hammer, Room LL-107.

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 – This session focused on three subject: Protections for Intellectual Property, Professional Development, and Protections from Power-based Harassment and Bullying. With our proposals we are trying to strike a balance between respecting that PIs lead the lab, making decisions about the outcomes of research, and the need for a certain level of protection for postdocs/ARSs who we see time and time again facing professional (and personal) consequences from unilateral decisions of PIs, including situations in which they are violating norms & policies without any consequences. CU admin seems to be framing their defense around protecting the PIs to have the ultimate power of decisions when it comes to research, even if they can profoundly impact postdocs/ARSs.

CU Administration arrives at 11 AM and we start our session which we are dedicating to discuss stronger protection for our work, and our careers. 

Protections for Intellectual Property and Professional Development

Our Bargaining Committee has been contacting and surveying current and previous postdocs/ARSs on their experiences with IP, and in particular their experiences with the patent process at Columbia. We start with a presentation of testimonials to demonstrate issues with the current patenting process at Columbia. If you’d like to see the testimonials please reach out! 

Snippets from testimonials: 

• A PI reached an agreement with an outside company without input from the postdoc who did the work for the project. As a consequence the postdoc was no longer allowed to present their work without explicit approval of the company (that they have no direct line of contact with). 
• Another postdoc was excluded from a patent which was based on their project despite the patent listing elements of the conceptualization and methodology that was the postdoc’s direct work (they were co-first-author). Through a long process, this postdoc was eventually added to the patent – but not until after a long, difficult, and stressful process that caused the postdoc significant distress. 
• Two more testimonials addressed how the power imbalance between the postdoc/ARS and the PI can lead to situations in which the patenting process is used as leverage to pressure and manipulate the postdoc/ARS. 
• Another testimonial discusses a situation in which the PI circumvented the proper process in Columbia’s IP policy to assign the list of inventors in a patent. 

Suffice to say – we presented a significant number of examples demonstrating clear and consistent issues with the patenting process at Columbia.

We also presented data showing that revenue sharing of licensed patents at Columbia has the lowest share going to the inventors as compared to a large set of peer universities (25% to inventors at Columbia – with the rest going to the university – compared with 30% to 45% going to inventors in other institutions). 

Our Bargaining Committee linked all testimonials and data to the language changes proposed in ARTICLE 6: COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. We are trying to strengthen protections related to IP and the patenting process for our workforce 

Next we discussed our proposal for ARTICLE 19: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT – to have clear guarantees that proper credit will be given to our work and a transparent method to resolve disputes on authorship. 

An ARS gave testimonial about his experience working in a lab at Columbia where he developed a new method. When his PI left Columbia, a second PI they were collaborating with hired a new person to repeat the postdoc’s work. This led to a publication in which they were not included. This postdoc now works with a different group at Columbia. After seeking help in every single office at Columbia he could think of, with no success, and after having lost 3 years on this project and a gap on his CV, he found this experience incredibly difficult, and found Columbia’s approaches for authorship protection incredibly lacking.

Our BC members wrapped this section up noting the importance of guidance and protections related to research and authorship while acknowledging the difficulty of formalizing language around these topics. 

Columbia’s Administration Response

CU’s Admin main point is that, while acknowledging that Faculty needs more training in mentorship, they consider our language to be too prescriptive and constraining.

After reiterating that we are very open to tweaking the language, and requesting that they point to specific areas to be improved, they finally provided some useful feedback to improve our proposal.

However, they also quickly noted that they don’t want to bargain over this topic as they consider it “Academic” (as opposed to working conditions) and therefore non-mandatory; also restating a common claim: “this is not stuff that belongs in the contract”.

We repeated that while we understand that it’s a complicated topic to address, given the much needed flexibility of research it is important to have some clear transparent guidelines to protect intellectual property and authorship which is fundamentally one of the main outcomes of our work at the university. 

Protections against bullying/power-based harassment

We also presented a proposed new article titled “ABUSIVE OR INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOR AS PROHIBITED CONDUCT” 

• For some additional context – bullying was a topic much discussed in the first contract, but one that the CU team heavily resisted putting into the contract arguing it was difficult to define. 
• The outcome of our last contract negotiations was to start a working group, which has been meeting and discussing anti-bullying initiatives and produced these recommendations for a policy against bullying/power-based harassment. 
• The definition of bullying which the Provost accepted last February comes from that process. 

Our proposed article includes the definition our members worked so hard on with Faculty, Grad Student Workers and other Officers – and already approved by the provost – and would give us the right to use our grievance and arbitration process if we disagree with the outcomes of the University’s investigation (as we have for cases of discrimination and sexual harassment). This right has been already won by SWC-UAW 2710 (representing Grad Student-Workers at Columbia) in their contract. 

Columbia’s Administration Response

CU Administration did not engage much in our article on bullying, just reiterating they want names of postdocs/ARSs who will engage in the working group (we do have two people in this group, but they both happen to be leaving CU). After a lot of back and forth they agree to review our language and propose some kind of a counter proposal. 

The session ended at 5:46 PM. Next session is on Monday at 10:30 AM at Hammer (CUMC).

---

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the notes from the other sessions!

Follow our next emails with updates on future steps and debriefing sessions!!

Reach out to us to get involved!

Follow us on social media! Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and join our and Slack​.

Share this info with your friends and colleagues!

June 8th, 1:45 PM @ Hammer, Room LL-207
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 – we moved closer to them in several economic and non economic articles (not yet in Compensation) hoping to get a more serious offer on benefits to supplement our salaries (like a housing stipend, childcare and the hardship fund). The administration still rejected/did not engage in most of our proposals and just moved their offer for minimum salaries from $62,400 to $63,000 for postdocs, and from $68,744 to $69,405 for ARSs. Still proposing locking us with these salaries for 5 years. 

We are ready in the room at 1:45pm. Columbia’s administration arrived at 1:57pm. For this session the Bargaining Committee is hoping to focus on economic and non-economic articles not including compensation. It’s difficult to come closer in salaries when we don’t have a response in other ways the administration is willing to help us pay the bills!

The Bargaining Committee presented the two following packages: 

• CPW-060823_ECONOMIC PROPOSALS
• CPW-060823_NON-ECONOMIC PROPOSALS

We opened by expressing disappointment at the lack of engagement from the Administration during the eight bargaining sessions we had so far. We reiterated that the changes we are bringing forward are requests from postdocs and ARS at Columbia. We acknowledged that there are many changes, and we tried to start bargaining earlier but the university refused. We express we hope to see more movement from them towards us and we reminded them that postdocs nationwide are not happy, citing movements in various universities to unionize and improve working conditions.

CPW ECONOMIC PACKAGE

• ARTICLE 3: BENEFITS – We exchanged our request for full premium coverage decreasing our original request by about $1.9-2.4 million (although we can’t calculate the exact amount as the university refused to provide us that information) by: 
  • Higher amount in the healthcare hardship funds – $300,000 for each year which could help cover medical emergencies of 60 postdocs/ARSs per year (instead of only 30 in 5 years as the Administration proposed!)
  • The Housing Stipend – which we lowered to $7,500. We insist on the Housing stipend which would help all of us and research budgets by lowering our expenses on rent (which is over 40% of our salary for the majority of us). Given that postdocs at other Universities in NYC received guaranteed and really subsidized housing we think Columbia should agree to it.  

• ARTICLE 4: CHILDCARE – we requested a response again. The Administration said they are looking at it but have not engaged in our proposed article.  
• ARTICLE 5: COMPENSATION – we stated that we are waiting for a better proposal from CU admin in all the other proposals before we make any concessions. 

CPW NON-ECONOMIC PACKAGE

• ARTICLE 7: DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE – we highlighted our changes aiming to ensure the University follows a fair timeline and process when firing a postdoc/ARS. Our contract protects us from unfair firing (with “Just Cause” for discharge and discipline) but if the University delays showing proof that justifies the firing, the clause cannot be enforced, specially for internationals who are forced to leave the country when we lose our job. 

• ARTICLE 13: JOB POSTING and ARTICLE 28: WORKSPACE AND MATERIALS – These two articles are the work of our ARDEIA working group aiming to increase the diversity and inclusion of our unit and addressing issues that our members experience over the last 3 years. 
  • We accepted their language for a DEI working group (Article 13) including a commitment to discuss demographic data to bring our ARTICLE 24: UNION ACCESS AND RIGHTS closer to agreement. 
  • We modified our language on bathroom equity (Article 28) to acknowledge the effort the university has made so far (in response to their comments on the last session).

An ARS from our ARDEIA working group was given the floor to testify and present these articles. He brought up the gender gap issue, and lack of diversity and racial representation, he explained that despite efforts by committees, no significant change happened, hence the importance of including a section addressing these gaps in our contract. 

He presented locations on campus with no or very few gender neutral bathrooms, the number of gender non conforming, gender fluid, non-binary folks is on the rise as a safe and welcoming environment  is created. He eloquently invited CU to push forward rather than push back on inclusivity and diversity. 

Columbia’s Administration Response

The administration responded to our opening statement disregarding our request to start negotiations earlier, and insisted that the first agreement is a good agreement. They believe that most things we are requesting must not be included in a contract. For example, the university is not comfortable putting housing in a contract, they haven’t done it to other groups at Columbia, and they won’t for us.

After a caucus requested by CU committee they asked us some questions about our proposals: 

• About our ARTICLE 1: RECOGNITION – we were asked to clarify why we are excluding the reference to the “faculty handbook”.  We explained how having the definition of our unit (who is covered by the contract and who is not) referencing a document that the Admistration can change at will could result in an unwanted unilateral modification (for context they already unilaterally removed postdocs and ARSs in the Schools of Journalism and Law without notification). They did not provide any logical reason as to why they oppose this change. BOTTOM LINE: The composition of our bargaining unit should be defined in our contract and NOT by the university’s faculty handbook.

• About our ARTICLE 9: GRIEVANCE PROCESS – The administration is not very comfortable with our suggestion for arbitrators, we will be looking for a substitute.

• About our ARTICLE 24: UNION ACCESS AND RIGHTS – Given that the information that the university give us for postdocs and ARSs is incomplete and with wrong locations (despite we have unsuccessfully worked with them to fix it), and that our emails are frequently labeled as spam, we insist that the University provides more information about the Union to new postdocs and ARSs. CU admin responded with “we don’t want to do your job” and refused to provide a union package to new employees (despite other universities doing it). 

About Fellows

• CU Administration provided information related to our ARTICLE 2: APPOINTMENTS – where our language is aiming to ensure that postdocs in Fellowships are considered to be employees unless the Founding agency specifically forbids it. 

• CU simulation of income of postdoc scientist vs fellow – Columbia’s administration provided their data claiming that given that Fellows don’t need to pay FICA taxes they are not losing money. 

• Forcing Fellows not to contribute Medicare and social security (FICA) to avoid economic losses means they won’t benefit from them later on retirement age. In addition, the administration is disregarding the loss of other benefits: retirement contributions for fellows, FSA, and HSA. We provided calculations based on Fellows paychecks: Fellow losses – CPW calculations

The administration requested another caucus. Once we were back in session:

The Administration provided what they deem to be a “COMPREHENSIVE OFFER” OF SETTLEMENT that they hope will be a framework for reaching an agreement 

CU expressed disappointment we did not come with reasonable numbers regarding compensation. They presented their package as a serious comprehensible offer (economic and non-economic) in the hope of moving things forward. Here are the highlights:

• CU Administration defended their new proposal on Compensation – a modest increase in the salaries as they consider Columbia’s minimum salaries are competitive. 
  • The new proposed minimum compensation for postdocs  and ARS are  $63,000 and $69,000, respectively, with 3% increase to the minimum each year.
• Increase the hardship fund with respect to their previous proposal to $250,000 for the duration of the contract.

The session ended at 7:25pm. Next session is on Monday at 10:30 AM at Hammer (CUMC).

---

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the notes from the other sessions!

Follow our next emails with updates on future steps and debriefing sessions!!

Reach out to us to get involved!

Follow us on social media! Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and join our and Slack​.

Share this info with your friends and colleagues!

May 31st, 10:30 am @ Hammer, Room LL1-110

Informal Organizing Committee notes

We arrived at 10:30 am. The Columbia administration arrived around 10:45 am, and we got started. This was a long session focusing mostly on non-economic articles. We came closer to an agreement on some Articles (Vacation, Holidays, and Sections of other Articles), but CU Administration is still resisting basic protections on others (International Employees, Discharge and Discipline, Power-based Harassment, Union Access and others).

First, we present our counter-proposals on non -economic issues:

• Accept their offer on Vacation:
  • Keep status quo for Postdocs/ARSs with over 3 years in the University.
  • For Postdocs/ARSs with less than 3 years at Columbia, cap at 23 days the amount of unused vacation days they can get paid out.
• Accept their offer on Holidays:
  • We win an extra pay holiday or personal day (depending on campus).
• Partially accept some of the language the offered on International Employees:
  • Accept their language to discuss issues of Int’l employees – blue ink.
  • Insist the Postdoc/ARS has the right to have the most beneficial Visa (not only longer in response to their comments) and to request a meeting with ISSO/HR and union rep to discuss that (Section 9) – red.
  • Insist on the International Fund (Section 10) – red.

Conversation on the article International Employee: 

• We accept their offer for the formation of a committee with the Administration and Union representatives that will meet 4 times a year to discuss and resolve issues that International postdocs and ARS face. We also propose a Section that the University “will make best efforts to provide the most beneficial Visa arrangement”, and that the worker has a say in conversations on Visa, and that “The employee will have the right to have a Union representative in those conversations”. 
• CU Admin thinks that this language is problematic and they don’t want to guarantee even “best efforts” for the most beneficial visa arrangement.
• We want to prevent situations where workers are given one year short visas for no good reason, burdening them with renewal fees and international travel to renew.
• CU Admin wants us to remove the sentence: “The University will make best efforts to provide the most beneficial Visa arrangement for the employee.”
• CU Admin insists that there is always a valid reason when Visa renewals are for 1 year, but then they say it is a business decision and it is their right as an Employer. They also object to having a Union rep present in the conversation.
• CU Admin insists that the University welcomes international workers, and has their best interest. They are not comfortable with the presence of Union representatives during Visa decisions for individual workers. They believe that allowing the worker to ask for a union representative in meeting with the ISSO will burden the office. 

They are making the argument that we can inform our members on visa issues independent of the contract.  However they are refusing provisions that allow us to have a well functioning union, and fair representation. Which brings us to presenting our counter proposals on:

• We are presenting ARTICLE 25: Union Dues
  • Accept their changes to our language on Section 12.
  • Insist on having every Postdoc contributing to our Union (Union shop).
• We are presenting ARTICLE 24: Union Access, Rights, and Activity
  • Accept that Union orientations won’t be mandatory.
  • Accept that the Union doesn’t need to be included in the general employee orientations (section 6).
  • Insist CU University must provide new employees with a union orientation package (section 6).
  • Insist CU University must provide us with more information related to the members but making it contingent on what they have (section 8).

CU Admin asked to caucus (break) in order to discuss our counters. CU Admin is glad to see that we are moving the process forward by having counter-proposals. They want to go back to their non-economic proposals after lunch break, and come back with new language hoping for a Tentative Agreement in some articles.

Conversation on our non-economic counter proposals: 

• CU Admin believes we can reach a TA (tentative agreement) for Holidays article.
• For the International employees article: They do not accept the International Employees Assistance Fund and for Section 9 they only accept that: “Upon employee’s request, ISSO and/or the corresponding HR office will meet with the employee to discuss their different Visa status”.  
  • Without a Union rep in the meeting, and reject language that the University will be making best efforts to provide the most beneficial Visa.
  • They don’t want to get to a situation where a worker grieves that they were not given the most beneficial Visa.
  • We are suggesting revised language: “The University will make best efforts to consult with the employee to provide a mutually beneficial Visa arrangement. Upon employee’s request, ISSO and/or the corresponding HR office will meet with the employee to discuss their different Visa options. Upon employee’s request a Union representative may be present in the aforementioned conversations.”
  • But CU Admin is still resisting. Their new objection: If the Union is entitled to send a representative in a conversation, the ISSO might feel that they are in a confrontation, and then they might not be able to serve the postdocs as a more “neutral” party.
• We are saying: One of the reasons we want the International Assistance Fund is to cover expenses of sub-optimal visas. To pay for fees and expenses incurred by renewals. They are saying that the problem with the International Employees Assistance Fund is that it is a financial ask, and we have too many of those…

CU Admin refuses basic protections that would eliminate the need to spend more money. And then, they complain that we ask too much in economics…

CU Admin promised to counter with a new non-economic proposal. We had a one hour break for lunch. 

Day 8 CU Admin non-economic counter-proposal: read here.

Conversation on CU Admin’s counter proposal:

• They are backtracking on one issue that is important to us: On Union Dues, they are removing their previous edit which would have made our union an open shop by making “fair share” payments optional (edit in Section 5). That is a win for us!
• On APPOINTMENTS: We want the university to provide material from the Union along the appointment letter, so far they are refusing that.
• On DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE, they are accepting language on Section 3 (when discharged a worker can request for the University to provide to the Union copies of the Employee’s performance review if available).  However, they are NOT accepting that in case of discharge, they will provide proof of why there is just cause for such action. 
  • This is what we want in the contract: “The union should be provided with all the materials regarding the investigation that led to the disciplinary action before the University is able to take any action.”
• In GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION: We will not make a counter about the 15 days yet. On the proposed Arbitrators, they accepted our suggestions for Ralph Berger, and we accepted their suggestion for Stuart Brauchner. We will suggest one more: Margaret Leibowitz.
• On Holidays: We are getting closer to  a TA: Juneteenth will be a new holiday, President’s Day will be removed and replaced by an additional personal day for CUIMC workers.
• On Union Dues and Access: We need the CU Administration to properly inform new employees about the union! 
• On VACATIONS: We are close to TA. That would mean that we accept their language that for workers with less than 3 years, they can receive pay in lieu of unused vacation up to 23 days. For workers that have been at Columbia more than 3 years nothing changes: we can accumulate up to 23 unused vacation days from the previous year and receive pay for all the unused vacation days we have.
• On WORKPLACE AND MATERIALS: We want to include language about gender neutral bathrooms: “The University will work with local facilities management to label existing gender-neutral bathrooms in office, classroom and lab buildings. Gender-neutral bathrooms shall be posted on a central website. The University will not prevent employees from using a workplace bathroom appropriate to the employee’s gender identity”. Also, we want the University to allow reasonable requests for remote work.
• On MISCELLANEOUS: We still want protections against power based harassment!

We will counter two articles. Here is our proposals: 

• Discharge and Discipline, and Workplace and Materials. 
• Language in black is from our previous contract, in blue is what we accept from their proposals, language in red is what we are currently proposing to add.

CU Admin took a break to look at our offers.

Conversation on our counter-proposals:

• GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION: On the proposed Arbitrators, CU Admin accepted our suggestion and we accepted their suggestion.
• On Article 7 DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE: 
  • Sometimes when a worker is being discharged, the University takes away access to the workers email, and then there cannot be a balanced investigation on the reasons the postdocs is being fired.
  • The University can nitpick conversations from the workers email to justify the discharge, while the worker does not have access to their documents in order to make the case.
  • We want to even the field for the worker.
  • Regardless, the administration is required to prove just cause in case of any dismissal. But the Admin’s practice makes the grievance process longer and more complicated.
  • CU Admin says that they only need to justify discharge or discipline ONLY through the grievance process, they don’t need to justify disciplinary action immediately to the worker when the action is being taken. They are saying that the worker is “Guilty until proven innocent”.
  • CU Admin says that they are employers at-will: they can dismiss an employee for any reason, and without warning, as long as they think that it is supported by just cause. They say that if we disagree for a specific dismissal, we  have to go to grievance and arbitration.
  • CU Admin says that they reserve the right to first discipline or dismiss workers, and THEN they investigate, so they might not even have the materials to support just cause when the worker is being discharged.
  • CU Admin says: They have the burden to provide just cause and they will meet that burden, but they have to protect the university and take disciplinary action whenever they feel like it, without need to justify.
  • To recenter this conversation (that went in circles), note from OC: We already have the contractual protection that the University can discipline or discharge a postdoc/ARS ONLY for just cause. That already provides us with a lot of protections from arbitrary actions from our PIs or the Administration. You can read about just cause protections in general, or check our instagram post here. The administration is just refusing to guarantee straightforward access to proof that they are following just cause, and they want the worker  to go through the grievance process in order to fight any of their disciplinary actions. If anyone finds themselves in a situation where there is a conflict or disagreement, don’t be afraid to reach out to the Union for assistance.
• On WORKSPACE AND MATERIALS: 
  • CU Admin does not want to include language on gender neutral bathrooms. They believe that they are already doing it, and that this does not belong in the contract.
  • We are trying to explain that we want language like that in our contract that will be empowering for our members, so that they feel included.
  • Adding a clause like that would show a commitment with a population of workers that has been growing in the past years (transgender and nonbinary) and does not always feel welcome at Columbia.
  • CU Admin wants us to first acknowledge in the contract the AMAZING job that the university has been making on LGBTQI issues, and how they are leaders in the city and the state 
  • On remote work provisions: CU Admin promised to look at the issue and come back to us.

End of session 5:45pm. 

Next session will be on Thursday June 8th, tentatively at 1pm location at CUMC (probably Hammer). 

---

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the notes from the other sessions!

Follow our next emails with updates on future steps and debriefing sessions!!

Reach out to us to get involved!

Follow us on social media! Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and join our and Slack​.

Share this info with your friends and colleagues!