2019-2020 Contract Negotiations

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!

May 23rd, 10:30 am @ Studebaker, 4th floor, Room 469

Informal Organizing Committee notes

We arrived at 10:30 am, the Columbia Administration arrived around 10:45 pm, and we got started. 20 of us were in the room: 11 Postdocs/ARS sitting behind our Bargaining Team of 9.

Session started off with CU Bargaining Committee handing us a set of updated non-economical counter-proposals: the day 7 university proposal to our opening bargaining package. 

Here are the main additions to non-economic articles:

• Unused vacation: There was a compromise  from CU’s Admin! They propose that Postdocs that have worked up to 3 years will receive up to 23 days of pay in lieu of unused vacations, while everyone else will remain under the current policy.
• Holidays: They propose that President’s Day is removed as an official holiday and will be substituted by a personal day. They included Juneteenth as an official holiday.
• Professional Development: They want the Union to educate the Postdocs/ARSs on professional development and the IDP (Individual development plans)! And they will convene a committee…But obviously, this will become more work that we need to do (instead of them or HRs)
• Power based Harassment: No protections in the contract against bullying and power based harassment. They just included a link to the recommendation we helped draft in the past.

After many delays, CU Admin presented their opening compensation proposal. To read their offer follow the link. 

Here are the main points:

• They are proposing a 5 year-long agreement. That is a very long period of time. During this period, economic conditions can globally change and the terms of the contract might worsen for the workers . Additionally, new Postdocs/ARSs should have the opportunity to represent their needs at the bargaining table, and bargain a new contract with updated terms.
• Compensation: 
  • They proposed new minimum salaries: $62,400 up from $60,000 for starting Postdocs, and $68,744 up from $66,000 for starting ARSs. In the US, inflation has been running on an average of 4% for the last 3 years of our current contract, that would be a cumulative increase of ~12%. Just inflation should bring the minimum for Postdoc to $68k.
  • We have experienced some of the highest periods of inflation, this is effectively a pay cut! 
  • Minimum annual salary increases will remain at 2.5% for a proposed contract of 5 years.
  • The overwhelming majority of us will see NO financial benefit from this proposal! 
  • It is less than what similar Universities are currently offering in their contracts. It doesn’t consider the expenses of housing, rising living costs, and the huge value our research work brings to this University.
  • There are no experience based increases or recognitions.
• Relocation Costs: They offered relocation reimbursement up to $1,250 for all new hires in 2024. This is something we had asked for! However, the money would come from PI’s grant, and is subject to taxes and other conditions.
• Healthcare and Hardship Fund: They offered a fund that will be managed exclusively by the OPA of a total of $150,000 for over 5 years for all the postdocs/ARSs that will be at Columbia during that time. This really results in pennies for every worker! The total number of Postdocs/ARS is higher than 1600, and over 5 years there will be way more new Postdocs starting their work at Columbia! That fund would basically benefit less than 0.9% of total membership during that period.

11:05 am: We called a caucus in order to discuss how to respond to these proposals.

• Consensus between members in the room and on zoom is that the offer is insultingly offensive (we couldn’t agree if insulting or offensive was the best word to describe it).
• Many of us do not believe that Union members would ever want to ratify this agreement.
• There is no sight of any childcare, housing, health benefits in CU Admin’s proposal.
• No Inflation/COLA adjustments for the annual increases (they propose a 2.5% minimum which is lower even than the 3% that they give other employees).
• They claim that they base these numbers on the markets. Which markets? Every other Institution is raising postdoc minimums to above $67, even Universities that are located in cheaper locations. Moreover, they are only taking into account the market of Postdocs and ARSs in Academia, definitely not considering the real market of Post-Graduate jobs.
• We want them to  use money to cover for many economical demands from central Columbia accounts, not research grants (PIs’!!). And we demand that they come up with a mechanism to do that (Harvard, MIT and Princeton are already moving toward this direction!!!).
• We made a detailed plan for all the points  to bring up when CU Admin returns to the room, which is to give our first reaction to CU Admin about their counter-offer, then present some counter arguments and ask clarifying questions.

After a short lunch break for pizza…

1:50pm: We are back in session! 

• We started stating clearly that the compensation offer is too low, it is unacceptable and disappointing.
• At the heart of this negotiation lies the issue that CU Admin is putting no institutional money on the table to supplement the money that comes from grants.
• CU Admin response: 
  • To the need for central money to support research: the University will not change its financial model. This is the model at Columbia, where the PI has to pay for most of the expenses about workers. If this is the foundation  of this negotiation, we will not be able to move on. 
  • Columbia is not going to get any good faculty, if they pay Postdocs/ARSs more! …as if other Institutions that pay their Postdocs more don’t have good faculty? (note of the editor).
  • On the other financial demands, CU Admin position: they are not going to include anything for housing nor talking about it. Childcare will be whatever the University provides to every officer, and will be decided outside negotiations (they said it’s something it’s been discussed now, but most likely will not be wrapped up anytime soon)..
  • They say: It is a market driven model. These are minimums, if we can’t find Postdocs, PIs will have to pay them more. They presented the 2.5% annual as a merit pool. Workers can get salary raises based on performances and PIs’ evaluation…We all know that is not true, the average salary of Postdocs/ARSs is very much close to the minimum salary.
  • About the market: They think that their offer is positioned right in the middle of what the current market offers. They are mentioning NYU, Rockefeller, Mount Sinai…Universities where Postdocs are upset, and guess what? Postdocs/ARSs are now unionizing and  bargaining for a better contract, and better compensation?
• We made the point again on how Academia will look like with their proposal. Only people with privilege will be able to be a scientist or a scholar! Especially in NYC! How will a Postdoc/ARSs be able to sustain  having a family? Or afford to live in this city?
• Their response: CU Admin has gone out of our way to provide good benefits to us.
• We asked for a clarification from CU Admin: the hardship fund is not coming out of grant money (150k for all postdocs for all 5 years). Relocation costs will come from the PIs grants.
• CU Admin is asking: Can we all work with this framework, and some adjustments, to find an agreement?

3:10pm: We decided to end this session. They want a counter proposal to theirs, which they believe is very reasonable. We asked some questions to clarify how absurd their counter-proposal is, and we are trying to schedule the next session.

Next bargaining session is scheduled for Wednesday May 31st 10am.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the minutes 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 19th, 10:45 am @ Studebaker, 469

For background – this session wasn’t on our original schedule, but was recently added to the schedule – planned as a special session targeted to discuss the topic of childcare given that due to Columbia’s denial on hybrid bargainign has made difficult for the mom on our bargaining committee to attend all the sessions.

We arrived at 10:45 am. The Columbia administration arrived around 10:55 am, and we got started. This was a smaller session – at the start we had 4 of our bargaining team present, as well as our UAW servicing representative, and 3 members sitting in on the session. The Columbia team had just 3 of their members.

As an opening statement from our side, our bargaining committee member Sumaira started with an opening statement emphasizing the need for better childcare support. She presented key points relating to the need for childcare support for postdocs – to better support parents, especially as a support for women in science at a stage in their career when we know there are various pressures that often push women out of academia around the postdoc stage. Sumaira also outlined the challenges of childcare when working at Columbia – including high costs of childcare in New York City, pressures that mean that families often live further away and have to commute, and the challenges of scheduling and maintaining lab research when you have childcare needs and available options are often economically unavailable. As part of this overview, our bargaining team presented the proposed changes relating to childcare, which include a 10,000$ childcare subsidy available per child, a demand that Columbia maintain access to sponsored backup childcare programs, having on-site childcare centers at each campus, and support for an adoption assistance program. 

The Columbia side responded, in a response given by Dan Driscoll. The preamble included their statements that they think childcare is important for all parents working in the university, and that they have made commitments over the years, like: 

• The extra days Columbia gave for emergency back up care during the pandemic. [But actually it was the campaigning of our members, including writing OpEds and delegations,  who won that in March 2021! 
• The interim provost making some commitment for centers that were closing [Note: this seems to be in reference to the Red Balloon daycare center that also was defended by a community campaign to prevent its closure]. 

But… “that it’s a complicated issue”. They again stated a common response – that they believe one policy for all officers is the best approach. They wrap up the responses basically refusing the demands, not stating that “this is not  discarding what you said” and “thank you for your thoughts”. 

After the initial statements and responses from each side, a series of follow up were said, largely from the union side presenting arguments for better childcare support, including:

• The need for childcare support was re-emphasized, highlighting the specific needs of our unit – our members cannot afford childcare (we are the lowest paid class of officers), have to work long days or weekends frequently when childcare is more expensive, and this is a sensitive time, especially for women in science.
• We are aware that other institutions offer much better support, and that potential postdocs choose these institutions over us for these reasons.
• It was pointed out that Columbia is consistently building new buildings, but not investing in childcare or adding things like daycare centers to their new buildings.

After this series of clear and passionate statements on the need for childcare support from our side, the Columbia side did not respond with anything – looking at each other to see if anyone was going to say anything. 

As the session was coming to a close, our side asked about their compensation offer. The general schedule is that we should expect their compensation-related offers at the next bargaining session, on Tuesday, May 23rd. We asked them directly about this – and they answered with their usual non-committal response that “we’ll see where we are at”. The session then adjourned. 

We had a brief caucus / discussion after, including the following discussions: 

• The general feeling was that we presented a strong case, and that our BC members made clear & strong points that the admin had nothing really to respond substantively to it all, and only reiterated their position of not changing benefits to specific groups. We think we made a strong emphasis that this is an issue we care about, and gave a show of strength that we expect that their counter-offers will include offers on childcare.
• We discussed that this is a topic we can put pressure on, it’s a good “campaign” topic that we could, for example, write an op-ed out (or similar) to build pressure. 
• We briefly discussed how this topic strongly affects not just current parents but postdocs who are often of an age to be considering having children. The lack of resources means that postdocs often have to consider perhaps not having children or leaving academia in order to be able to afford to have a family.
• There was also some discussion of organizing with parent members, as we know it is difficult for parents to schedule time and commit to meeting and organizing on this topic.

End of bargaining session #6

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the minutes 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 15th, 1:30 pm @ Hammer LL2-201

We arrived at 1:30 pm, the Columbia administration arrived around 1:45 pm, and we got started. 

17 of us were in the room: 11 postdocs/ARS sitting behind our Bargaining Team of 6.

Session started off with the CU bargaining committee handing us a set of non-economical counter-proposals–the day 5 university proposal–to our opening bargaining package. 

We held a 45 minute caucus immediately to discuss their counter-offer and which questions to ask them! 

We reconvene with Admin at 3:12pm (15min after we told them we are ready)

We requested a short session before the 23rd only to discuss childcare.

We are expecting the economic proposal on the Tuesday, May 23 bargaining session. (We reminded them of this expectation).

End of bargaining session #5

(Total 2hr at 25min)

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Read the minutes 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!