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.

Day 14 – COMPLETE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT

• Minimum salary for postdocs: $63,600 (edited)
• Minimum salary for ARS: $70,066
• 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.

Around 8:30-9 PM the session ends.

---

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 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.]

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.

Around 7:49 PM we got CU Admin Offer

More details in the next session on June 30th last before contract expiration!
Around 8:00 PM the session ends.

---

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 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!