Session Thirty— (February 26, 2026)
TL;DR
This session we heard over an hour of powerful testimony about:
Challenges faced by international grad workers.
Why international workers need guarantees in our union contract.
How the University does in fact have the power to make some simple yet impactful commitments.
Your testimony was incredible. What happened in that room made something crystal clear: when international workers speak about visa precarity, about fear, about the stakes of retaliation or bureaucratic error, the University has no substantive response. This was one of our proudest moments. Thanks to all of you who spoke out, and all who came out to support your fellow students.
We believe the testimony shifted the ground. It exposed how thin their arguments are. And if we keep up the pressure, it will have the desired impact. We need to secure a basic level of protections and enforceability in our contract, not only on issues of international workers but more broadly. The University’s current position is simply untenable, and we still have not heard any rationale stronger than
“The University isn’t interested in being held accountable by an arbitrator.”
That is their position. Not that they can’t provide protections. Not that it’s impossible. Simply that they do not want those protections to be enforceable.
Keep coming to bargaining. Your presence really does keep them honest. We have noticed how it forces them to explain their rationale, and makes it all the more obvious when that rationale doesn’t hold water. The next session is March 9th, 12–3pm in Davis Center 403 (Williams Family Room), and you can register for the Zoom call here.
Union presented:
Appointment & Reappointment
Union Rights
Recognition
Testimony from International Workers and Allies
University presented:
International Workers’ Rights
International Workers’ Rights
It is perhaps an understatement to say that this is an important time for Universities to protect their international communities. The Union proposal contains language that would enshrine basic protections for international graduate employees in our Union’s collective bargaining agreement. The Administration has been incredibly resistant to this language, with administrators even accusing the union of being “paternalistic” and requiring “education”.
Union Rights
Union Rights deals with several important logistical aspects of our union. These include access to meeting spaces, UVM furnishing us with bargaining unit information so we can fulfill our duty to represent our members, access and time in graduate student orientations, and more. These are simple and basic requirements for any Union. But the University’s counters seek to limit our access to our members as much as possible, and even to police our internal leadership and democracy structure. This is not common in comparable graduate student contracts, and our recent counter restores the (very modest) level of access needed for the Union to perform its basic functions.
Appointment & Reappointment
This article refers to how GSEs are notified of their appointment and reappointment, and what information is presented to you in your appointment letter. This is an important protection for graduate students because it holds UVM to a standard for when you will receive important notices about your employment.
Recognition
Recognition defines who is in the unit, and is based on our union certification through the Vermont Labor Relations Board. Repeatedly, the University has fought to limit who is in our unit at the Vermont Labor Relations Board, and we have prevailed. We believe we are close to settling this, and the final sticking point is making sure that all appropriate hourly graduate employees are included and have union representation.
Session Twenty Nine— (February 11, 2026)
TL;DR
The University continues to show they do not prioritize the protections of those most vulnerable in our community. International workers need meaningful support right now, and UVM has continued to say these protections can’t be included in our contract, even though they are in the contracts at other New England universities! While we are making progress on the articles below, continued member engagement and support are critical to winning the protections we deserve.
We need your help to show the Administration that we deserve an enforceable contract, not a grievance procedure that’s full of holes.
Union presented:
Non-Discrimination
International Workers’ Rights
University presented:
Union Rights
Discipline & Discharge
Policies & Procedures
Appointment
Non-Discrimination
We are once again asking the University not to carve out issues of discrimination and harassment to make them non-grievable. This is the biggest sticking point across all of our discussions.
Other changes include:
Reintroducing language stating that GSEs may request accommodations for disabilities, which the University has repeatedly removed.
Reintroducing language that reaffirms some things which the University already provides (lactation stations, all-gender restrooms, prayer spaces).
Reintroducing language that states protections from sexual harassment, bullying, and the ability to update pronouns in University records.
International Workers’ Rights
We reintroduce our demands that the University:
Protect the privacy of GSEs to the extent allowable by law.
Make reasonable efforts to ensure that government agents comply with legal requirements before interrogating, searching, or seizing the person or property of a GSE on campus.
Notify the Union of an immigration investigation regarding a GSE.
Provide to a GSE evidence of their own employment/enrollment if requested.
The University has repeatedly refused to engage on any of the above commitments. Admin actually became hostile and upset when we suggested they weren’t doing enough to protect international workers.
The positive news about this article is that they are engaging in language that would allow international workers to seek reappointment if their visa status is interrupted.
Union Rights
Some progress here. The Good:
They removed some of their most egregious attempts to determine Union stewards and representatives.
They agreed to post the agreement to the UVM website. (Why was this ever in doubt? Strange.)
The Bad: There’s still some wildly outrageous stuff they’re trying to include
“Union representatives shall not have access to or enter any classrooms, laboratories, or other instructional or research spaces at any time, for the purpose of providing representation rights to GSEs, regardless of whether such areas are occupied or in use.”
The Union is treated as a “third party” when reserving rooms and meeting spaces! (We would not be treated as any other campus union, student club, or organization!)
The Union doesn’t get to have a UVM email account.
Union leadership is not provided any “release time” to carry out their Union duties.
The Union doesn’t get to have a table at any Week of Welcome events.
Discipline & Discharge
Two remaining sticking points here:
The University won’t notify the Union if a GSE is fired unless they have signed a FERPA waiver (only ~22% of you have signed a FERPA waiver so far).
Language saying that the Union doesn’t have jurisdiction in academic matters—we partially agree, but we still have some disagreement to the extent that academic matters can supersede work-related matters. This will require more discussion.
Policies & Procedures
No change here. The University reaffirms their position that they have the right to modify any and all policies that are not expressly addressed by the Union Contract.
Appointment
In the interest of moving things forward, the University proposes to separate “Appointment” and “Reappointment”, which were previously together in one article. Issues of “reappointment” may touch upon economics, so these are separated to agree on non-economics more quickly.
The university requests a deadline of 15 days before the start date to provide appointment letters (as opposed to the 60 days requested by the Union). They also desire language such that appointments “shall not be subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions in this Agreement”, which is extremely broad and likely to limit our ability to enforce the contract.
Session Twenty Six, Seven, and Eight— (December 11, 2025 and January 15 & 20, 2026)
TL;DR
If you want Union-backed protections against discrimination and harassment, we need to hear from you. Members have made clear they do not trust existing University processes without enforceable accountability, and administration continues to resist movement toward a meaningful grievance and arbitration access, which would provide said accountability. Your stories and support are critical to moving this forward.
The University has also claimed that some hourly TAs and RAs are not part of the bargaining unit, despite all academic graduate workers being spelled out in the Vermont Labor Relations Board certification. We have filed a charge with the VLRB, currently in abeyance while discussions continue. We are hoping to have this resolved shortly.
While progress has been made on some articles, the University has repeatedly suggested delaying non-discrimination and grievance issues in favor of introducing economic articles. We are motivated to get wages and healthcare on the table—but not under circumstances that would force us to sign away core rights and protections. Some of the toughest issues—Non-Discrimination, Grievance and Arbitration and International Protections—remain unresolved. Both sides want to keep the momentum going, but these core rights remain non-negotiable for the union.
What We’ve Made Progress On:
Grievance & Arbitration
After months of back-and-forth, we are close. Errors were corrected, timelines clarified, confidentiality protections confirmed, and the union made concessions while holding firm on retaliation protections.
Intellectual Property
The union reiterated that we are not trying to change IP policy. Our goal is due process and the ability to grieve when the University does not follow its own rules. After continued discussion, the union agreed to limited carveouts to move things forward. A tentative agreement was reached in session #28.
Discipline & Discharge
Productive discussion clarified that the University does not intend to bar international work outright and that decisions should be made case by case. However, the University’s language would prevent the Union from being notified when an employee is terminated. The University acknowledged our concerns and will consider an alternative.
Job Posting
Tentative Agreement was reached early in session #26.
High-Priority Issues Still Unresolved
Grievance and Arbitration
The ability to file grievances is our main contractual mechanism for enforcing the contract and making sure the University follows our hard won rights and protections. We want the process to be as effective as possible, UVM wants to slow it down and make it weaker.
Non-Discrimination & Harassment Protections
This remains a major sticking point. Administration continues to resist arbitration and enforceable grievance access, instead proposing internal review processes that do not address the lack of trust members feel.
In session #28, a graduate worker shared firsthand testimony describing systemic failures in UVM’s non-discrimination and accessibility processes—unclear and dismissive procedures, decisions deferred to departments, delayed graduation as a result, interrupted services, and career harm. The message to the table was clear: without enforceable accountability, policies don’t protect people.
International Graduate Worker Protections
The Union strongly objected to Administration striking language committing the University to cooperation, communication, and following the law when legally permissible. Removing even cooperative language creates fear and undermines trust. Comparable universities have already ratified similar protections. While the administration cited legal and federal enforcement constraints, we remain far apart and continue to demand a counter that reflects real commitment, not silence.
Other Ongoing Issues
Delays in new employee lists—fingers crossed the list we get after add/drop is accurate.
FERPA waivers looking like spam emails and even going to spam inboxes (admin committed to fix this).
Articles still in the University’s court:
Grievance and Arbitration
Union access & rights with FERPA waivers
Appointments & Reappointments
Discipline & Discharge
International Workers
Workload
Session Twenty Five— (Tuesday, November 11, 2025)
Union presented:
Job Posting
International Workers Rights
Package proposal:
1. Management Rights
2. Discipline & Discharge
3. Grievance & Arbitration
4. Non-Discrimination
University presented:
Intellectual Property and Copyright
Training
Both sides tentatively agreed (TA’d) on the Training article!
The union emphasized keeping the grievance process intact and not wanting future carve-outs.
Job Posting
We are seeking standardization and transparency in public job postings (e.g., through GradNet).
Union clarified that “public posting” means sharing opportunities broadly within the graduate community, not necessarily beyond UVM.
Both sides asked clarifying questions about what counts as “public” and potential limits on departmental discretion.
The administration reviewed the article during the caucus and returned a counter for us to review. We think we will be able to return a good counter at our next session.
International Worker Rights (IWR)
We worked on stressing the importance of protection for international graduate workers given political uncertainty.
Making progress, we accepted several university edits but reinstated specificity about bargaining over procedural changes that affect international students (e.g., SEVIS policy shifts).
UVM raised legal concerns about requiring bargaining over compliance with federal law, however, the Union cited precedent at UNH and UMaine where similar language was accepted.
Both sides acknowledged complex overlap of student and worker status; University will review language and potentially counter.
Intellectual Property (IP)
UVM reaffirmed reliance on existing university IP policies and opposed Union grievances for IP disputes.
They believe that academic vs. employment contexts complicate representation rights (FERPA issues).
Union raised inconsistencies in application—especially regarding use of teaching materials, slides, and new issues with AI content.
Discussion focused on when it would be appropriate to allow Union representation for GSEs involved in IP-related investigations.
Administration agreed to review and clarify the section on representation and investigation process.
Union presented a package proposal including:
Management Rights
The Union acknowledged the University’s need for operational discretion but pointed out that extensive Management Rights articles make it difficult to enforce a contract..
We presented a choice of Management Rights articles from UMass, UNH, URI, and UConn. These are contracts which are already working well at comparable institutions.
Management seemed to appreciate the engagement with the article and have stated they will review the language for potential agreement.
Non-Discrimination
The Union incorporated much of the University’s previous language and modeled revisions after UMaine and UNH.
Key additions: ability to bring cases of discrimination or harassment through the grievance process, clearer language on sex and disability, protections against bullying, and provisions for all-gender restrooms within five minutes of workplaces.
Debate centered on grievability of discrimination and Title IX overlap:
UVM is concerned about potential legal conflicts between arbitration and Title IX processes.
The Union argued that similar grievance rights exist in other universities without excessive liability.
Discipline & Discharge (D&D)
Union clarified language to ensure disciplinary actions related to work, not student conduct, remain grievable.
Administration explained GSE roles are contingent on student status but agreed to review cases where harassment or retaliation causes program exit.
Both sides to revisit specific language and implications in the next bargaining session.
Grievance & Arbitration (G&A)
Graduate students want to be able to use the grievance process in parallel to other resolution processes, and do not want it mandated ahead of time which process is appropriate for each type of dispute. The University wants all such processes to be mutually exclusive.
There are also various ways in which the University is seeking to limit the power of the arbitrator, for cases which go to arbitration. The Union is holding firm on some of our requests in this section, since we have made the concession of negotiating on Management Rights.
However, the Union has conceded to the University’s proposed timelines throughout the article.
Session Twenty Four— (Tuesday, November 4, 2025)
Union presented:
Training
Intellectual Property & Copyright
Union Rights
University presented:
Job Posting
Management & Academic Rights (package proposal)
Non-Discrimination & Harassment (package proposal)
Last session, we asked the University to bring a counter on Non-Discrimination since their previous proposals depended heavily on this article. In response, they brought a package containing both Non-Discrimination & Harassment and Management & Academic Rights.
As we have explained before, their version of Management Rights is far overreaching, declaring UVM’s right to have sole discretion over numerous things which are still on the bargaining table. Not only is the length and breadth of the article completely unprecedented, it is also highly unusual to agree to a Management Rights article so early in negotiations.
Despite this, the University packaged Management Rights with their Non-Discrimination counter. On top of that, they have not even offered a version of Non-Discrimination that is remotely acceptable.
We have asked time and time again for the very same rights available to UVM staff (Article 13, Section 13.8), and the very same rights available to dozens if not hundreds of other grad unions (including all our neighboring state institutions): to be able to use our union grievance process to address issues of discrimination or harassment. This request has not been taken seriously, and we have never received adequate explanation of why UVM should be held to a different standard than UMass, UConn, UNH, or UMaine.
This time, we were excited when the University said that their new version allowed a grievance process! Imagine our dismay when we discovered:
- It is nearly word-for-word identical to one we already rejected back in July.
- It does not, in fact, allow those victimized by harassment to bring grievances. It only allows for those facing discipline for of harassment to bring grievances.
See the key language here (Section 4):
In cases … where the University has found a violation of University policy after [an OEO investigation], and issued discipline as a result of the findings of such investigation, the respondent GSE subject to the discipline, may … pursue a grievance … if the GSE is dissatisfied with the University determined discipline.
So if you were disciplined for harassment, you can use the grievance process to seek an alternative punishment. This, in itself, is not unreasonable. Any kind of discipline should be grievable if unjust. But the fact that it is the only kind of grievance that the University is willing to allow is, frankly, baffling and insulting.
It is incredibly difficult to come to agreement around Grievance & Arbitration or Discipline & Discharge while this language around Non-Discrim is still up in the air. We need the support of you, our members, more than ever. We cannot win proper protections against discrimination and harassment without your pressure on the administration.
| GSU-UAW2322 (us!) | UVM | |
| Non-Discrimination and Harassment | Strong language preventing discrimination and harassment. | No protection under the contract, as no cases of discrimination or harassment are grievable. Only the University’s existing processes shall be used. |
| Management Rights | What is standard in other New England grad unit contracts | Overreaching 4 page enumerated list that includes bargainable topics |
| Grievance and Arbitration | Robust grievance procedure, including for non-discrimination. | It’s getting closer but pushes non-discrimination grievability to that article |
| Discipline and Discharge | Process and protections from unjust discipline and termination. | We feel we are getting close on this |
| International Worker Protections | Protections from unlawful search, ensures access to legal aid, job protection in the case of visa issues, tax prep assistance. | “The University is committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and equitable environment for all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of immigration status” + notice if you’re terminated – basically the whole article |
| Workload | Ensures your required workload matches your contract (20 hours for most GSEs). | Haven’t engaged. |
| Appointment and Reappointment | Ensures you get your offer letter in a timely fashion and ample notice if not reappointed. | Haven’t engaged. |
| Job Posting | Clear communications for open positions. | Postings will “comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations governing job postings.” … That’s all. |
| Intellectual Property | Same rights as other University employees. | Grads are unable to grieve IP policy violations. The University doesn’t need to inform the Union before enacting major policy changes. |
| Union Access and Rights | Outlines resources necessary to represent you as a Union;similar rights as other unions on campus. | Fewer rights than other unions on campus including limiting physical access and a limit on how many stewards the union can have. |
Session Twenty Three— (Thursday, October 23, 2025)
Union presented:
Training
Intellectual Property
University presented:
Union Access (package proposal)
Grievance & Arbitration (package proposal)
Discipline & Discharge (package proposal)
Admin had indicated last session that they would bring a package to move along the remaining non-economic articles and this session they brought one containing three articles: Union Access, Grievance & Arbitration, and Discipline & Discharge. The key contention in Grievance & Arbitration has been whether discrimination is grievable. This package sort of kicked the can down the road by moving that discussion to the Non-Discrimination article. We encouraged them to bring a counter on Non-Discrimination since we cannot TA articles that reference important aspects of other articles that haven’t been agreed upon. We also presented counters on Training and Intellectual Property. Admin returned a counter on Training and we are hopeful we can TA next session. For Intellectual Property our counter’s language would ensure that grad workers have the same rights as other UVM employees. Admin countered with some lower protections around data access as well as not allowing this article to be grievable. While we are glad that Admin is countering more articles we are cautious given that in the past their bad packages have slowed negotiations.
| GSU-UAW2322 (us!) | UVM | |
| Non-Discrimination and Harassment | Strong language preventing discrimination and harassment | Uses University’s existing (and lacking) avenues to report misconduct, most cases not grievable |
| Grievance and Arbitration | Robust grievance procedure, including for non-discrimination | It’s getting closer but pushes non-discrimination grievability to that article |
| Discipline and Discharge | Process and protections from discipline and termination | We feel we are getting close on this |
| International Worker Protections | Protections from unlawful search, ensures access to legal aid, job protection in the case of visa issues, tax prep assistance | “The University is committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and equitable environment for all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of immigration status” + notice if you’re terminated – basically the whole article |
| Workload | Ensures your required workload matches your contract (20 hours for most GSEs) | Haven’t engaged |
| Appointment and Reappointment | Ensures you get your offer letter in a timely fashion and ample notice if not reappointed | Haven’t engaged |
| Job Posting | Clear communications for open positions | Haven’t engaged |
| Intellectual Property | Same rights as other University employees | GSEs unable to grieve IP policy violationsLower level of stated access to data compared to other employees |
| Union Rights | Outlines resources necessary to represent you as a Union;similar rights as other unions on campus | Fewer rights than other unions on campus including limiting physical access and a limit on how many stewards the union can have |
Session Twenty Two— (Tuesday, October 7, 2025)
Union presented:
Training
University presented:
Intellectual Property and Copyright
We presented our Training counter which removed language around disciplining students for not doing trainings. The goal of our language is to make sure everyone gets the training they need and to have grad worker input in trainings. Admin returned a counter in the same session which moved the discipline conversation to the Discipline and Discharge article. Admin’s counter on Intellectual Property removes our ability to grieve issues pertaining to that article. We plan to counter both of these at the next session.
Overall, these counters were better than what we have seen in the past. We also discussed the remaining articles on the table that have not yet been TA’d or even countered in some cases. Their new lead negotiator asked if we would be open to package bargaining again. We expressed, as we have before, that packages make sense only when we are close on articles individually and then we can give and take across them. The packages we have seen in the past have just been non-starters because they had egregious language in them. We stated that we would consider fair and sensible packages. We will wait to see what Admin brings to our next session on October 23, 9 AM – 12 PM, in the Allen House Conference Room!
| GSU-UAW2322 (us!) | UVM | |
| Training | Be able to request and receive the training we need | Discipline if we do not do mandatory trainings |
| Intellectual Property | Same rights as other University employees | Article is not grievable |
| Non-Discrimination | Strong language preventing discrimination and harassment | Uses University’s existing (and lacking) avenues to report misconduct, most cases not grievable |
| Grievance and Arbitration | Robust grievance procedure, including for non-discrimination | Limits to what is grievable, excludes non-discrimination |
| Discipline and Discharge | Process and protections from discipline and termination | We were getting close on this before they put this article in a terrible package with other bad counters |
| International Worker Protections | Protections from unlawful search, ensures access to legal aid, job protection in the case of visa issues, tax prep assistance | “The University is committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and equitable environment for all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of immigration status” + notice if you’re terminated – basically the whole article |
| Workload | Ensures your required workload matches your contract (20 hours for most GSEs) | Haven’t countered |
| Appointment Reappointment | Ensures you get your offer letter in a timely fashion and ample notice if not reappointed | Haven’t countered |
| Job Posting | Clear communications for open positions | Haven’t countered |
| Union Access and Rights | Outlines resources necessary to represent you as a Union | Haven’t countered |
| Professional Development | Proposes a professional development fund for GSEs to use for conferences, workshops, etc. | Haven’t countered |
Session Twenty One— (Thursday, September 25, 2025)
Union presented:
Recognition
Training
University presented:
Employment Files (Tentative Agreement)
Union Security (Tentative Agreement)
Health and Safety (Tentative Agreement)
Immigration, Non-citizen workers, and International Graduate Workers Rights
After many bargaining sessions with little to no movement from Management, we were finally able to make progress and reach tentative agreement (TA) on 3 articles! Management for the first time in months came to the table with realistic counters that we had been asking for. We have been so incredibly close on these TA’d articles, particularly Employment Files and Union Security, for ages now so we are thankful to finally be able to focus on what is left of the rights and protections that Management has been kicking down the road:
| GSU-UAW2322 (us!) | UVM | |
| Non-Discrimination | Strong language preventing discrimination and harassment | Uses University’s existing (and lacking) avenues to report misconduct, most cases not grievable |
| Grievance and Arbitration | Robust grievance procedure, including for non-discrimination | Limits to what is grievable, excludes non-discrimination |
| Discipline and Discharge | Process and protections from discipline and termination | We were getting close on this before they put this article in a terrible package with other bad counters |
| International Worker Protections | Protections from unlawful search, ensures access to legal aid, job protection in the case of visa issues, tax prep assistance | “The University is committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and equitable environment for all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of immigration status” + notice if you’re terminated – basically the whole article |
| Workload | Ensures your required workload matches your contract (20 hours for most GSEs) | Haven’t engaged |
| Appointment Reappointment | Ensures you get your offer letter in a timely fashion and ample notice if not reappointed | Haven’t engaged |
| Job Posting | Clear communications for open positions | Haven’t engaged |
| Intellectual Property | Same rights as other University employees | Haven’t engaged |
| Union Access and Rights | Outlines resources necessary to represent you as a Union | Haven’t engaged |
In this session we reaffirmed our original Recognition article (outlines the Graduate Student Employees in our Union) in light of the updated list from the Vermont Labor Relations Board. Fruitful discussion was had on Training as well and we feel that an agreeable Training counter can be passed to Management by next session.
The tone at the bargaining table seemed more cooperative which we believe will lead to continued progress on getting a fair contract. Management did return a chopped-up counter to our Immigration, Non-citizen workers, and International Graduate Workers Rights article which significantly reduced the length and specificity of the article we passed. Ensuring international worker protections is a priority for us, as we would hope it is for the University as well, and we look forward to making that clear in the coming sessions.
Session Twenty— (Thursday, August 28, 2025)
Union presented:
Health and Safety
University presented:
Training and Orientation
The first session of the new academic year also thankfully marks the final session with Chris Lehman as UVM’s lead negotiator. We hope that Meredith Dante, the lawyer UVM flies infrom Philly every bargaining session, will work with greater transparency and efficiency as the new lead negotiator. Management brought a single counter on Training and Orientation. However, this counter was lackluster with language that would ensure UVM retains full control over the content, frequency, and topics of training. While discussing their counter, it became clear they believe that the training GSEs receive has been improving over the past few years, which is quite a different story than what we have been hearing from newer members.
We passed a counter on Health and Safety. Despite Chris trying to claim we are still far apart on this article, some good conversation was had on this article. We are hopeful that our discussion around the article will lead to a meaningful counter from management in the coming session. Before wrapping up the session, we delivered a short prepared speech to Chris, making it clear we have not been satisfied with his work, or lack thereof, as UVM’s lead negotiator, explaining to those who remain on UVM’s side of the table that we are hoping this change will empower the rest of us to make real progress during negotiations. In a rambling, often off-topic response, Chris stated, “[He leaves] here with this as a failure for sure.” We can’t help but agree and hope future sessions will be more productive with this change in leadership.
Session Nineteen— (Thursday, August 14, 2025)
Union presented:
Health and Safety
New articles:
Appointment and Reappointment
Intellectual Property
Successorship
Immigration, Non-Citizen Workers, and International Graduate Workers Rights
Job Posting
University presented:
Health and Safety
Even with an entire month since our last session, management arrived with no counters to the bargaining table. We came far more prepared with a counter to Health and Safety and five new articles, squaring out our non-economics. The articles we brought would ensure regulations for how the university posts jobs for GSEs, that the union would stand in the event the university comes under new leadership, protections for international GSEs, protections for GSEs’ intellectual property, and creates a process for assistantship appointment and reappointment.
After passing our six articles, management caucused for half the session, deciding to do their homework during class. Management eventually returned with a Health and Safety counter with more progress than we had previously seen from them but still far from what we are hoping to achieve. As management was preparing to leave, we asked them if they had any thoughts about last sessions’ packages on their side of the table. Despite clearly having decided against TAing on these packages well in advance, Chris mentioned rejecting them only in a passing comment after we asked. Despite claiming to want longer summer sessions to get more done, we finished the last summer session after management effectively wasted half the session for a counter rather than bringing one ahead of time and losing most of the progress we had been making on multiple articles with their rejection of the packages we had been passing them. Management’s goal appears to remain the same: to stall and drag out these negotiations as long as possible.
Session Eighteen— (Thursday, July 17, 2025)
Union presented:
Response to Package:
Union Security and Employment Files counter
University Presented:
Health and Safety
Package:
Grievance & Arbitration
Discipline & Discharge
Non-discrimination and Harassment
Management’s Rights
TL;DR: We brought a package counter on Employment Files and Union Security to last week’s session. We struck a timeline that Admin disagreed with, and agreed to increased protections for Admin in exchange for standard language that they have expressed concerns about. We presented this expecting Admin to see that we made major concessions and think the package should be close to TA. We were surprised and disappointed when Admin asserted that our concessions were not equitable. We hope they review this and accept this package at the next session.
Admin presented a standalone counter on Health and Safety and a package proposal including Grievance and Arbitration, Non-Discrimination, Discipline and Discharge, and Management Rights. We were pleased to see movement on Health and Safety and we plan to counter this article next session. However, the package was, frankly, a mess. Admin is fully aware that we are not close on Management Rights and yet chose to include it in the package. Management Rights is generally not handled this way in contract negotiations, and insisting on asking our membership to waive their rights before we have agreed to basic protections for them is egregious. Further, there were no significant concessions in any of the other articles. We spent the session reasserting our position on Management Rights and indicated to them that the other articles were once again on their side of the table among several other articles. We hope to see more counters next time, particularly standalone counters.
What Happened:
For our second session of the summer, we came prepared with a package counter comprising two articles which we believe are close to tentative agreement (TA). We had also indicated to Admin that we would engage with them in a discussion of their Management Rights article though we weren’t countering it at the session. Admin came with a package proposal with multiple articles as well as a stand-alone counter on Health and Safety which they planned to present after caucus.
First on the agenda, we presented our package counter with Employment Files and Union Security. In both of these we are only asking for standard language while allowing more expansive non-standard language for Admin, particularly around liability in Union Security. For context, in a previous Employment Files counter, Admin had proposed a 15 day timeline but in discussion they had indicated that they desired a 14 day timeline instead to make it consistent with some other timelines. When we countered accordingly with 14 days, they suddenly backed out and wanted no timeline, which was incredibly frustrating. In an effort to move forward with negotiations, we conceded and proposed a “reasonable timeline” in our package, hoping to get a TA.
On Union Security, we included the UAW Volunteer Community Action Program (VCAP), an extremely standard item in UAW contracts. VCAP is an important tool for members because it allows us to get involved and participate in political efforts that support our community, such as advocating for funding in higher education or for laws that protect our international student members. VCAP contributions are entirely voluntary, and this language is ubiquitous in union contracts. The list of higher-ed contracts we shared with Admin with VCAP is provided at the bottom of this bargaining update. Moreover, in recent contracts that are currently being negotiated – at UMaine, Wellesley, and Harvard – VCAP was accepted in their respective admins’ first counters! Still, we wanted to make movement and agreed to another language which goes beyond standard language around liability for Admin. This, along with the non-specific timeline on Employment Files, seemed like a fair trade. However, Admin stated that they do not believe these to be of “equal weight.” We fail to see why UVM Admin is refusing to agree to standard language that has been accepted at other universities without any concessions on the part of the union. Admin’s lead negotiator, Chris Lehmann, responded to this by saying that something must have been conceded elsewhere in the contract. We know this is not true because VCAP was agreed to in the first counters at other universities, including UMaine, UNH and Harvard. Amin did not accept nor reject the package in this session. We hope that they will see the standard nature of VCAP along with the sizeable concessions on our part and TA on these articles as they are at the next session.
We then moved into discussion of Management Rights in which we presented an annotated version of their most recent counter. Our aim with this exercise was to reassert our position that significant portions of this article relate to items that are actively being negotiated in other articles and that we would negotiate this language in the appropriate places. Here’s the document for reference.
It is standard in union contract negotiations – within higher-ed and across other sectors – to negotiate and TA on Management Rights in the final stages of negotiations, as it deals with language that often appears in many other places in the contract. We had hoped to have an open conversation in response to Admins pressure around this article. We had hoped that this exercise would encourage Admin to counter other articles that are on their side, rather than expecting to TA this early on Management Rights. Negotiation on Management rights at this stage is extremely abnormal in contract negotiations.
In the past, we have seen Admin behave inappropriately when we have asserted our positions. In this session, they got extremely frazzled and their behavior bordered on unprofessional, some members raising their voices at us and stomping away to caucus in a huff. They accused us of bringing up new things in this annotated document. This is incorrect. We have clearly stated these same points to them verbally as early as October and again in February. They have chosen to ignore common sense negotiation norms.
In an even more bizarre turn, Admin asserted that they want us to put all articles on the table, including economic ones. Previously, their team has been very clear that they will not negotiate economic articles until non-economics are done first. We agreed because this is very standard practice. Admin even cut out economic aspects of articles we presented before so we could discuss them. We were shocked when in an unnecessarily heated moment, the lead negotiator said that they now wanted economic articles too, almost faulting us for not doing so earlier. There were GSU members outside of our Bargaining Committee who were observing the session and many of them told us how horrified they were at Admin’s behavior. We named this as gaslighting before going to caucus.
After the first caucus, Admin presented their package proposal comprising Grievance and Arbitration, Non-Discrimination, Discipline and Discharge, and Management Rights (unchanged from their previous version). We were puzzled as to why they would include Management Rights in their package when they knew we were nowhere close on the existing version. We rejected this after internal discussion in caucus. Admin also made one very minor concession in Non-Discrimination where GSEs would be able to grieve the discipline they receive in cases of discrimination between one GSE and another. This is a toothless Non-Discrimination counter and we won’t accept anything less than comprehensive protections against discrimination across our membership.
On a lighter note, Admin’s Health and Safety standalone counter is something substantial we can work with and we are appreciative of this. We hope for more fair standalone counters like this one. We aim to counter this in our next session. There was movement in their counter and we will be able to respond.
Our next session is on August 14. There are numerous articles in which we can make progress if Admin stops pushing non-standard language and procedures. It is unacceptable that UVM Admin behaves in this manner. This is not the case at all in other universities, ranging from private to state schools, small and large institutions. We will continue to fight against this unusually vicious treatment and win a fair contract for our members!
Examples of Contracts with VCAP language
In first contracts being currently negotiated:
University of Maine (Graduate Workers) accepted language in their first Union Security counter, 12/18/2023
Wellesley (Non-Tenure Track Faculty) accepted VCAP language in their first Union Security counter, 4/1/2025
Harvard (Academic Workers) accepted VCAP language in their first Union Security counter, 5/19/2025
Other Relevant Contracts containing UAW VCAP language:
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Graduate Employee Organization
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Postdoctoral Researchers Organizing
University of Massachusetts Boston, Graduate Employee Organization
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Graduate Workers Union
Harvard University, Graduate Students Union
University of Connecticut, Graduate Employees Union
University of Connecticut, Postdoctoral Employees Union
Columbia University, Postdoctoral Workers
Columbia University, Student Workers of Columbia
The New School, Student Employees of the New School
New York University, Graduate Employees
Washington State University, Graduate Employees (Across WSU campuses)
University of California, all contracts (Academic Student Employees, Student Researchers, Postdocs, Academic Researchers)
Session Seventeen — (Tuesday, June 17, 2025)
Union presented:
Non-Discrimination
Response to Package 1:
Grievance & Arbitration counter
Discipline & Discharge counter
University Presented:
Package 1:
Grievance & Arbitration
Discipline & Discharge
Package 2:
Employment Files
Union Security
TL;DR: This was the first session for the new bargaining team! (Andrew, Neil, Rei, Rubaina, Sam, Skyler, Sunshine) A warm thank you to the members who are leaving us to graduate (Bailey, Baxter, Calum, Reed). You have left us in good stead.
During the summer, we will have longer, all-day bargaining sessions rather than the 3-hour sessions we’ve had over the past year. We are hopeful that this will really improve our conversation and make substantive movements more possible.
A total of seven articles were passed today (three before caucus and four after caucus)! Although we felt the University’s package made no movement other than the loosening of a couple deadlines, we worked hard during caucus to propose a full counter to the package and turn it around in a single session. This would not have been possible in a shorter session.
To mark these new, longer summer sessions, we wanted to really put our best foot forward and attempt to establish a new precedent. Thus, we made some major concessions to sweeten the deal for them. We believe this package will be a real litmus test for bargaining going forward. We hope UVM recognizes this and responds with similar good faith.
What Happened:
The session started with brief introductions from new BC members and Admin. Admin began with acknowledging and appreciating the exiting BC members and mentioning that over the last year the two parties have gotten to know each other better and it may be time for necessary concessions on both sides to make progress. To them, the longer sessions are one step toward making progress, the other was presenting a package that included Grievance & Arbitration and Discipline & Discharge.
Before discussions began, both parties also clarified which articles the other party was waiting for a response on:
- Waiting on Union – Non-Discrimination, Recognition, Management Rights, No Strike No Lockout, Policies & Procedures
- Waiting on Admin – Grievance & Arbitration, Discipline & Discharge, Employment Files, Union Security, Health & Safety, Union Access & Rights, Training & Orientation
Admin then asked if the seven foundational pillars that the union has made priority are still the same. We made abundantly clear that we are here to represent our members and that our priorities have not changed; only representation has changed. As a reminder to all of us, those founding objectives from the original formation of the union are still listed on our website’s homepage:
- A universal minimum stipend at a living wage
- Protections for international student workers
- Addressing the housing crisis
- High-quality healthcare, including dental and vision benefits
- Accessible childcare for working parents
- Protections against excessive workloads
- A robust grievance procedure
We then presented our counter on Non-Discrimination.
- We thanked the Administration for their commitment to discrimination and harassment training. We kept this provision, but did propose that these trainings occur annually.
- We reasserted the protections which were removed by Admin (including discrimination, multiple types of harassment, bullying, and others). We explained that we wish to have these protections enshrined in our contract, even if some of them already exist in university policy.
- We reasserted that issues of discrimination and harassment should be grievable through the union grievance process, which the University is staunchly against.
- To address their concerns, we included some description of how the grievance process can work in parallel with UVM’s existing processes. This is something that UVM Staff United already has in their contract.
- Admin expressed their concern that multiple procedures would allow “justice to be undone” and create confusion (despite the fact that UVM Staff United already has this exact provision).
Admin then proposed a package that included Grievance & Arbitration and Discipline & Discharge. As compared to their prior proposals, they offered slightly looser timelines for the grievance procedure (45 days for initial filing, 15 days for most other steps), but otherwise reintroduced all the language that we have objected to (including some very concerning language giving the University final oversight over arbitration judgement and restricting the Union’s arbitration remedies).
Discipline & Discharge updates primarily reintroduced language that both parties have been going back and forth on. They claimed that they made a lot of concessions, but the only movement we could see was one extremely minor technical point (to allow one additional Union rep to accompany a member to disciplinary meetings, if agreed upon by the University).
During the caucus, we reviewed Admin’s package and drafted a counter-package. While presenting our counter, we tried to make clear to Admin that we have made some major concessions which we hope they will appreciate (agreeing to some limitations on back pay; limitations on arbitrator jurisdiction; allowing that failure to re-appoint does not amount to a discharge; and some other things). They returned Union Security & Employment Files as a package with no substantive concessions or movement, but we will see how they respond to our package in the next round.
Session Sixteen — (Monday, May 5, 2025)
Union presented:
Health and Safety
Discipline and Discharge
University Presented:
Non-Discrimination and Harassment
TL;DR: After a string of productive bargaining sessions that we hoped would bring us more tentative agreements (TAs), frankly, we had a disappointing session. Our semester of bargaining wrapped up with Admin’s familiar stalled pace. While our member pressure worked in terms of getting a counterproposal on Non-Discrimination (and thank you to all who held signs last session), they admittedly made zero compromise in this proposal. The act of providing a counterproposal is not enough — we need substance! Chris Lehman, Admin’s lead negotiator, further had the audacity to ask us about our “target pace and endpoint in coming to a TA on the inaugural contract.” Easy answer: ASAP! Anyway, the rundown was: 1) Admin invited Nick Stanton from the Office of Equal Opportunity to give a lecture on the current procedure for handling cases of discrimination or harassment, 2) Admin provided a counterproposal on Non-Discrimination and Harassment, 3) we provided counterproposals on Health and Safety and Discipline and Discharge, 4) we led a conversation about articles we feel close to agreement on, pressuring Admin to keep things moving. In response, Admin tried to pressure us into unfair trades in order to reach tentative agreement on these articles.
What Happened:
The session started with Nick Stanton from the Office of Equal Opportunity (EO) providing context for Admin’s counterproposal on Non-Discrimination and Harassment (they crossed out “Sexual Harassment” from the article title). Admin asked Stanton to explain the current EO procedures to us. While Stanton gave a good overview of these procedures, we felt that including this lecture was insulting on Admin’s part; we conducted extensive research when preparing our proposal, familiarizing ourselves with the existing procedures, and we feel this time could have been spent negotiating. Further, we’ve stated explicitly at the table and in member testimony that existing procedures are not sufficient!
Next, Admin presented their Non-Discrimination counter. They stripped nearly all the language from our last proposal and replaced it with language from their original (5-sentence) proposal. The only changes they included were a reference to the EO and the ability for GSEs to receive discrimination and harassment training, at the University’s discretion. When asked how this feels like a step forward, Lehman’s response was unbelievable: “It may not feel like a step forward. It reiterates our thoughts on the topic.” This is not how we understand negotiations to work. Admin sidestepped the follow-up question on how this will serve the GSEs who testified that the current policies and procedures were not sufficient, saying that the contract language we proposed wouldn’t solve their problems either.
We then presented our counters, starting with Health and Safety. We added back key provisions in this article including protection against retaliation for reporting, payment of stipends and benefits if a GSE cannot work due to a safety related worksite closure, and fair compensation for GSEs that suffer an injury on the job. This was followed by our counter on Discipline and Discharge. Here we made changes to make sure that GSEs can only be disciplined or discharged if there is just cause. We also defined clearly what constitutes discipline and introduced the option for GSEs to pursue an expedited timeline for discipline and discharge issues under the Grievance and Arbitration procedure. A key provision we included here is the option for international students to go directly to arbitration if they lose their employment.
Both sides having presented their counterproposals, we moved on to a discussion of the articles that remain open and close to agreement. Admin provided bizzare and vague responses to what is preventing TA on these. Through further questioning, the reasoning became clear: Lehman claimed that a timeline on providing copies of employment files could not be met because the filing systems at UVM “are a mess.” When we asked for clarity, Lehman responded “Without receiving something in the negotiation process in return, it’s not possible.” In short, Admin is not willing to settle these simple articles, that we effectively agree on, until they get something of equal or greater measure.
Giving up something important such as protections around non-discrimination and harassment for a minor procedural item would not be a fair trade. We will not concede the welfare of our members simply due to the university’s dysfunctional filing system.
After a caucus, we questioned Admin on why they struck our ability to grieve issues pertaining to Non-Discrimination and Harassment in their counterproposal. Other union contracts at UVM allow these issues to be grievable, and this is common in other grad worker union contracts as well. Admin’s response was that they think having parallel processes through Title IX and the OEO could lead to justice being hindered due to conflicts in the processes. In that case, we don’t understand why these issues are grievable in other UVM contracts. Lehman said that the other unions negotiated the ability to grieve as a result of “give-and-take,” so they gave up something else that was important to them in the contract. He asked us to reconsider package bargaining, but we remain hesitant at this stage as it is another opportunity for them to stall. Admin asked multiple times throughout the session if we would be open to sidebars, which are off the record conversations members cannot participate in. We turned these down as we want a transparent process for our members.
We are not sure when the next bargaining session will be, as they declined the first set of dates we proposed in May, though we made it clear that we are keen to negotiate often and regularly over the summer.
Welcome and Farewell:
Finally, we are excited to work with our new Bargaining Committee members Andrew Gerlicz, Rei Jia, Sam Troast, and Skyler Younger! Welcome to the BC! While we must sadly say goodbye to Bailey Kretzler, Baxter Worthing, Calum Buchanan, and Reed Scott, we are incredibly grateful for the work they have done over the past 9 months. In addition to their contributions to bargaining, we acknowledge and appreciate their years of organizing including towards forming the union. We wish them the best as they wrap up their degrees and in whatever comes next!
Session Fifteen — (Thursday, Apr 17, 2025)
Union presented:
Grievance & Arbitration
Employment Files
University Presented:
Health & Safety
TL;DR: Generally we felt that this session was a step in the right direction. We were disappointed by Admin’s continued resistance to reach agreement on fundamental aspects of the articles we discussed, but we feel that our priorities and concerns were clearly expressed. We also feel that we were finally able to get some clear responses from Admin regarding their concerns with some of our proposed language. We hope these discussions will prove fruitful and that Admin is open to actually negotiating over these articles in future sessions.
What Happened:
On Grievance & Arbitration: Our most recent counter put us much closer to reaching agreement on critical Grievance & Arbitration protections and procedures despite Admin’s assertion that we are very far apart. They remain particularly concerned with arbitration, suggesting that they may reconsider how arbitration is dealt with. Regardless, we remain committed to ensuring that arbitration will be available to GSEs and that critical articles (like Non-Discrimination) remain grievable.
On Employment Files: The GSU BC brought a counter that we thought would bring us our third tentative agreement (TA). Disappointingly, Admin resisted a TA. Our counter only added two things: (1) the ability to receive copies of your files, and (2) a deadline for furnishing the files. Based on previous counters, we believed that Admin would be amenable to this, and we continue to believe that the ability of a GSE to receive copies of documents in their own employment file is more than reasonable.
On Health & Safety: Admin brought in the director of UVM Environmental Health & Safety, Francis Churchill. While we appreciated his input, we prepared our previous counter with close consideration of current UVM policies, and this did little to alter our priorities. The University’s counter crossed out 4 of the 10 sections, claiming that they were redundant, despite containing important new protections for GSEs. In the other 6 sections, they proposed a number of changes. For instance, they removed the assurance that a GSE would continue to receive their full stipend if their worksite is closed. Despite all of this, there was much in these 6 sections that Admin accepted, and we are pleased to have made some headway towards agreement.
On Discipline & Discharge: The GSU BC also prepared some questions regarding the Discipline & Dismissal article Admin presented in our April 3rd session. We feel we have more clarity around their priorities and concerns with the language we proposed, and we look forward to presenting a counter at the May 5th bargaining session.
On Non-Discrimination: To conclude the session, GSU members and the GSU BC participated in an action: we held signs and read a statement from the Non-Discrimination Working Group, demanding that Non-Discrimination remain grievable and that we receive a counter on this article. Admin’s team bristled slightly at this, yet it had the intended effect. Admin’s lead negotiator, Chris Lehman, stated, “We appreciate the passion… It helps clarify what priorities are.”
Session Fourteen — (Thursday, Apr 3, 2025)
Union presented:
Grievance & Arbitration
University Presented:
Policies & Procedures
No Strike, No Lockout
Employment Files
Discipline & Discharge
(postponed) Health & Safety
TL;DR: We are relieved at the progress being made at the table, even though there were no new agreements and there is still substantial ground to cover on each article. We feel that we may be close to agreement on Employment Files, and may be able to provide useful counters to both Discipline & Discharge and Grievance & Arbitration in the next session.
What Happened:
On Policies & Procedures: Our main goal with this article is to ensure that existing procedures which graduate students have come to expect remain in place. We would like to reserve the right to object to changes in our working conditions. The University’s latest proposal omits this language and we will seek to bargain over this further.
On No Strike, No Lockout: Back in February, the Union had proposed a simple, two-sentence version of this article; which simply said we would abide by the current law and reevaluate if the law changed. Admin countered by reintroducing the original language, asserting that it was very important to them. We are extremely wary of enshrining these rules in our contract.
On Employment Files: What should be a simple article has been dragged through a painful number of revisions, but we feel we are closer than ever. Our remaining concerns are:
- Providing a reasonable timeline for reviewing employment files.
- The right to ask for copies of the files.
- The right to have a union representative present, at the request of the GSE.
On Discipline & Discharge: For the very first time since we presented this article in September(!), we finally have a counter. We still need to review this in more detail to determine what are the substantive differences that have been proposed. It seems likely that we can make a useful counter to this by next session.
On Grievance & Arbitration: The Union presented a G&A proposal at the beginning of the session, and the University showed considerable gumption in returning a counter in the very same session. We were honestly surprised at the rapid turnaround which obviously required some effort. We still have significant concerns about the proposed arbitration process, and whether discrimination cases will be grievable. However, the University made a significant concession in the form of offering a 45-day period for filing a grievance. This is not unheard of, but is on the upper end of what we see in other grad union contracts. We look forward to proposing a counter to hone in on the remaining areas of disagreement.
On Health & Safety: Admin also has this article ready for us, but they had to postpone until next session because they would like to present it with testimony from Francis Churchill, Director of Environmental Health and Safety at UVM, who was out sick.
Session Thirteen — (Thursday, Mar 20, 2025)
Union presented:
Health & Safety
University Presented:
Grievance & Arbitration
Management Rights
Recognition
TLDR: We presented one counterproposal and Admin presented three. We felt this was a productive session that put us closer to agreement on important right protections such as Grievance and Arbitration. This progress is due to the substantial pressure members have been putting on the University, including the February 28th Work-in. Thank you so much for your continued support! It’s proven that Admin is on their best behavior, shown by engaging in useful conversation, when our members are at bargaining sessions.
What Happened: The session opened with a very positive tone on the first day of spring. Our chair noted that we were pleased with the tone of our last February session, and we got to work. We presented our one outstanding counter on Health & Safety, which would guarantee grad workers protections in the labs and classrooms they work in. Admin presented three counters on Grievance and Arbitration, Management Rights, and Recognition.
Our Health and Safety counter re-introduced language important to our members. This enshrines our right to work in a safe environment. Our counter added back in common sense language on basic health and safety precautions. Admin asked why we would use the Union University Committee (UUC) despite the fact that the use of the UUC was introduced in their counter.
Admin’s Grievance & Arbitration counter reintroduced language that would lengthen the grievance process and exclude instances of discrimination from the grievance procedure. Their resistance to including things that are important to our members—and which have precedent in every single graduate union contract that we have read—is disappointing. However, we felt that our conversation with Admin at the table highlighted some areas where we might be able to find common ground. We look forward to drafting and presenting our next counter.
We still believe that the bulk of their Management and Academic Rights is entirely unnecessary and well beyond precedent. We are concerned that accepting this article would waive our right to negotiate over a great many topics that impact our work. We are working towards seeking clarity and finding common ground.
Admin also returned a counter to the Recognition article, which had previously been on hold while the Vermont Supreme Court deliberated over the University’s appeal attempting to exclude Pre-doctoral Trainees & Fellows from our bargaining unit (read more here—see Paragraph 23). The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that they could not make a decision on this matter due insufficient evidence, and returned the case to the Vermont Labor Relations Board. With the case back in the VLRB, Admin attempted to push us to settle this at the table. Admin attempted to frame the court’s ruling as saying that Pre-doctoral Trainees & Fellows are excluded from our bargaining unit. However, we know this is not true. We intend to wait for the VLRB’s decision before proceeding with a counter on this article.
In this session we also discussed the most recent list of bargaining unit members (UVM grad workers) sent to us by Admin. Through this list, UVM took the chance to assert their recognition article by excluding predoctoral fellows and trainees. Admin confirmed this was knowingly and intentionally done when asked about it in session. By introducing a counter and withholding data in a way that attempts to erode our bargaining unit, the Administration has once again violated our trust and shown that they do not play fair. Shame on you UVM Admin!
Session Twelve — (Thursday, Feb 27, 2025)
Union Presented
No Strike no Lock Out
TLDR: We presented one counterproposal and Admin presented none. This was a productive session compared to some of our previous ones, and Admin committed to bringing at least 3 counters next session. Thank you to everyone who came to the work-in! Bargaining sessions have been the most fruitful when you hold Admin accountable. We hope our members’ continued participation and attendance at these sessions will spur Admin to pick up the pace even further.
Our chair, Baxter, began by addressing Admin’s behavior in the previous session and initiated a more positive and productive tone for this one. We emphasized the importance of finding common ground, pushing back on Admin’s divisive narrative that our proposals would hurt the University. Our chair spoke to how our union members also want UVM to prosper; “University of Vermont” is at the top of all of our CVs. After tensions from last session were assuaged, we moved on to our counterproposal on No Strike No Lock Out. Our counter would align with the Vermont state law which does not allow public sector workers the right to strike.
Admin brought no counter proposals to the table. They requested we spend session time combing through their proposed Management Rights and Academic Rights article. Admin asked clarifying questions on nearly every item of the Management Rights section of the article, reading through it line by line, and Baxter answered each question thoughtfully. We found this to be a very fruitful conversation and we hope for more like these in future sessions.
We hope that future sessions will proceed along these lines, with both parties asking specific questions to better understand the other’s position. However, this improved behavior comes a little late; this is what we would have liked to see months ago, particularly when our side raised a discussion on Management Rights but got no clear answers from Admin. We hope they are more cognizant of this moving forward. Admin committed to bringing counters next time on Management Rights, Non-discrimination, Grievance and Arbitration, and possibly No Strike No Lockout. We are keen to encourage them to keep up this pace.
Session Eleven (Thursday, February 13)
Union’s Package
Policies & Procedures
Training
Employment Files
Management Rights
Discipline and Dismissal
Negotiations Summary
“We don’t want a contract. We didn’t ask for your union.” – Chris Lehman, Admin’s Lead Negotiator, on UVM GSU, our Union that UVM graduate workers voted in favor of 98% through a democratic election.
Admin continues to delay negotiations and stifle the voices of our members. The GSU Bargaining Committee came to our 11th bargaining session prepared with a package proposal to pass. This package aims to secure critical rights and protections for you, our valuable members. Package bargaining entails taking a group of proposals and “packaging” them together to be accepted or rejected in whole.
Our chair opened the session by asking Admin to present any counters they had prepared. Admin had nothing to present. In our opening remarks, we informed Admin that we voted to reject their package and we had one to present. Before presenting, we had relevant testimony from GSU members as well as allies from UVM’s undergrad and staff community. We heard moving and heartfelt testimony that highlighted the vulnerability of our grad workers and the critical role we play in supporting undergrads and the broader community. We are very grateful to our members and allies for raising their voices for stronger workplace protections, particularly around Health & Safety and Training. Next, we presented our package containing Training, Employment Files, Discipline & Dismissal, Policies & Procedures, and Management Rights. By countering Admin’s package with one of our own, we aimed to show that we are amenable to finding common ground, despite our reservations about package bargaining.
The Training and Employment Files articles in our package were similar to previously passed Union proposals. We made some modifications to bridge the remaining gaps between GSU and Admin. Our package also included our most recently passed counters on Policies & Procedures and Discipline & Dismissal. The former article ensures GSU retains the right to negotiate over any changes to a University policy or procedure that impacts GSE’s working conditions. If Admin were to make a change to our working conditions today, they would be obligated to negotiate with GSU. This is a right we currently have, and do not want to waive.
Our Discipline & Dismissal article establishes a procedure to ensure fair notice, evidence, equal treatment, and due process in cases of discipline or dismissal of a GSE. This has not been countered at all by Admin, and we included it in our package as this is an important protection for members.
We also countered Admin’s Management and Academic Rights article, which we felt was overreaching and redundant. It highlighted their desire to retain power over matters directly related to our working conditions, including training, health insurance, and even discipline and dismissal. We consolidated the most reasonable of this language into a counter that addresses Admin’s desire to retain their right to run the University while restricting Admin overreach. We feel this counter is fair and reasonable and also much closer to a standard Management Rights article.
Admin felt differently, stating the package showed how far apart we are in negotiations. This comes after many bargaining sessions where Admin has returned inadequate and insulting counters. After we presented, they requested to spend the remaining 2 hours of our session in caucus without asking any substantive questions about our proposal. We asked them if we could alternatively communicate to them if we wanted to reconvene for further discussion during our allotted session time. After discussing with members during caucus, we determined it would be more useful to return to the session so we could find some common ground by asking them what things are important to them in these articles, and to give members in the room a chance to speak directly with the Admin team. Members and the BC prepared questions for Admin with the hopes of finding specific areas where we are far apart and where we could get closer.
While Admin was initially resistant to the idea of hearing questions from members, we were able to proceed as planned beginning with general questions about bargaining. We heard questions from members of the BC regarding the University’s motivations behind this contract, to which Lehman responded “I think I said, transparently, that we don’t want a contract. We didn’t ask for your union. […] We’ve been bound by the courts to negotiate with you.” We then opened it up to questions from members.
One member, Francis Guarascio highlighted the clear differences in the structure and function of our committees. Our GSU BC is run democratically, transparently, and in a way that challenges traditional academic hierarchies. Admin’s team alternatively is top down, exemplified by Lehman’s insistence that all questions be directed through him, stating “I’ll do the talking for my group, unless they ask me to speak.” Then when Guarascio specifically asked other members of the Admin team to address where they felt we were far apart in our negotiations, Admin got visibly frustrated, stated they’d be spending the rest of their time in caucus, and walked out. This left the rest of the members’ questions unanswered which we’ve included at the bottom of the update.
The GSU BC is appalled by the blatant disrespect Admin showed towards our members who worked carefully to prepare questions that would help us better understand how to proceed with bargaining. And instead of sticking around and having the uncomfortable conversations that are necessary to move forward, Admin walked out. This hurt us, and it hurt our members.
We care deeply about our membership. Your voices and your needs are what compel us to bargaining the best contract possible. You elected us to represent you and we remain committed to protecting and uplifting you at and outside the table. Admin is behaving shamefully and we will not let that slide. We will show up to our next bargaining sessions prepared to have difficult conversations with Admin to win the rights and protections our members need. And we need you to show up too!
So what can you do?
First, sign the Contract Now petition! After that, reach out to us, your bargaining committee, to learn how to get involved. You can talk to your friends and co-workers, come to bargaining, share testimony, and much more. Sign this petition to directly participate in bargaining right now! After you sign and get your friends and labmates to sign, make a plan to attend an upcoming action!
Here are some of the questions that members wanted to ask Admin before they walked out:
“Chris, you said that you have been having a lot of difficult discussions behind closed doors while you caucus. From our perspective it seems like your side of the table has not compromised very much at the table. What are some examples of hard discussions that you have had that have resulted in a sacrifice on your part that was a result of one of these hard discussions? For us as GSEs we already come to the table already having made these sacrifices.”
–William Thompson, Complex Systems & Data Science
“Just this week, I just had a student come to me about issues they have been having with a group exam and there were some major issues and educational needs brought to my attention and I didn’t have the tools I needed to address their concerns and help the student succeed. I need adequate training to do my job properly and represent the best of this university to undergrads and their parents. How does the proposed training article not benefit both the grad student and the university?”
–Andrew Lewis, Physics
How are we far apart on wanting to properly train GSEs on how to handle the incredibly vulnerable situations that are Title IX topics? We do not get the training we need to teach and mentor the vulnerable students. How can each of you from the university team think of ways to work with GSU to ensure proper trainings for Title IX topics through this contract?
–Skyler Younger, Neuroscience
How precisely are your values of workplace safety so “far apart” from our own? At a university that pledges responsibility as a core value of Our Common Ground, why would our employer not take the ultimate responsibility of workplace safety: enshrining our safety and trainings in a fair contract?
–Mandy Nix, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
Session Ten (Thursday, January 30)
Union counters
Grievance and Arbitration
Policies & Procedures
Union Security
Admin’s Package
Policies & Procedures
Training
Health and Safety
Employment Files
Negotiations Summary
GSU’s Bargaining Committee came prepared to advance negotiations with counters on Grievance and Arbitration (G&A), Union Security, and Policies & Procedures. Our chair took a moment to acknowledge how terrifying the past two weeks have been for grad workers and other students—how the ability of people to live in dignity is being threatened—and asked Admin to keep this in mind in bargaining as we talk about rights and protections.
In our G&A counter, we continued to push for a lenient time window for members to file a grievance but a shorter window for any resolution procedures. This gives members time to consider their options prior to filing while ensuring any filed grievances are resolved swiftly. We also removed language from Admin that would prevent the filing of grievances related to issues like non-discrimination and appointment/reappointment. In our Union Security counter, we accepted language that releases admin from liability on dues on the condition that they accept our language allowing members the option to contribute to UAW’s Voluntary Community Action Program (VCAP). Our Policies & Procedures counter included the right to negotiate over future changes Admin might make to any existing university policies and procedures pertaining to our employment. This counter would effectively allow past practices (i.e. policies or procedures) to continue as they are. Admin would retain the ability to change any past practices, while we would gain the right to negotiate over the impact of these changes should our working conditions suffer as a result.
Admin, rather than countering articles individually, came with a package. A package is a group of articles submitted together for the other party to either accept or reject in totality, rather than countering back and forth on individual articles as we have been doing. Usually, packages mix provisions that are advantageous and disadvantageous for both parties with the goal of reaching a compromise. Unfortunately, Admin didn’t include much in their package that would benefit us. The only “carrot” in the package for us was that we would be able to file grievances related to training and health and safety violations, simply by introducing these articles to the contract. In exchange, we would have to agree to a zipper clause, which waives our right to bargain over any changes to past practices; Admin would be able to make changes unilaterally without our input. The Training and Health & Safety articles were also very weak compared to our proposals. Given Employment Files is a straightforward article that allows members access to their employment records, we were rather confused by its inclusion in their package. We expected an individual counter on Employment Files as we believed we were close to TA on this article.
Admin also framed their proposed package as a show of their “goodwill,” since there are things in it that we currently do not have. We asked them to point out what parts of the package they think would benefit us and received a ridiculous response from the Admin’s lead negotiator, Chris Lehman. He said the advantages were the inclusion of “non-mandatory” items, while handing us a package containing only articles related to GSEs conditions of employment, which are legally mandatory subjects of bargaining. Their expensive lawyer (who flies in from out of state for every session) then offered a bit of word salad to cover up his ineptitude. FYI, all UVM salaries are publicly available for anyone wondering how much he is being paid to be this misinformed.
We are still considering how to respond to this package but we question the fairness of the trade-off that has been offered to us.
In this session, we also questioned Admin about their motivations behind the incredibly restrictive Management and Academic Rights article they passed us in October, in order to better prepare our counter. In his responses, Lehman came across whiny and dismissive stating “our desire was not to have a contract, and to operate in an open and flexible relationship.” However, we know all too well how this open and flexible relationship works. Admin would rather have an unfair contract, than provide the graduate workers of UVM with basic rights and protections.
Towards the end of the session, Admin formally rejected our Academic Freedom proposal. They said that only faculty have academic freedom while we do not. Some of the faculty on the panel offered more nuanced opinions that leave more room open for grad workers. We expressed that many of the tenets of academic freedom, including in research, teaching, and extramural expression, provide important protections for graduate workers. We also pointed out that other grad unions at universities of similar standing, such as UMaine, are actively negotiating over academic freedom articles, and at Rutgers it is enshrined as university policy.
We remain motivated and energized to fight for the GSU membership, especially in these trying times ahead. We are committed to winning a fair contract for our membership that ensures that we can live and work with dignity.
Session Nine (Thursday, January 16)
Articles Discussed
Directory information
Article: Grievance and Arbitration
Article: Employment Files
Where we’re at
Negotiations Summary
The start of a new semester brought the GSU Bargaining Committee to the table with renewed energy to make this an efficient semester of bargaining. We came ready with a counterproposal on Employment Files and hopeful that the Administration would provide counters of their own. Disappointingly, they came to the table with only one counterproposal, on Grievance and Arbitration. A large majority of the articles currently on the table are awaiting counters from Admin and the counters they have provided either maintain the status quo or even weaken protections for grad workers. However, this has only strengthened our resolve and motivated us to reassert our demands for a fair contract now.
GSU began with opening remarks on the momentum we started to feel at the end of last semester and the importance of strengthening protections for graduate workers. The GSU chair highlighted our current precarious working conditions and resolved that this must change, reminding the Administration of UVM’s Common Ground values and quoting John Dewey: “Education is not preparation for life. Education is life itself.” Our chair also noted that current practices of many faculty members align with the protections we would like to see institutionalized in our contract, asking Admin’s team to move their starting point from “can we live with this?” to “how can we support graduate workers?”
Next, we discussed Admin’s counter on Grievance and Arbitration. They reasserted many pieces of their last counter, such as requiring an additional hearing before grievances can go into arbitration. We would like the resolution of grievances to be as timely as possible, with no delays to the arbitration process when it is necessary. The Administration, on the other hand, desires to not “waste resources” on arbitration. They further reasserted a list of exceptions to grievable articles that included non-discrimination, non-appointment/reappointment, and taking leave. They also reasserted restrictions on the resolutions the arbitrator has the authority to grant. Finally, while they removed all language around the University respecting the grievance timelines, they maintained a strict timeline for the Union. In all, we identified only a few places where Admin made movement on this article: they increased the window for the initial filing of a grievance from 15 to 20 business days, and they agreed to equally bear the cost of arbitration with the Union. Twenty days is not enough, and we will continue to bargain for a more lenient filing window.
Next, we gave a counter on Employment Files, an article that both parties believe to be very close to agreement. We added back in a timeline, asserting that Human Resources must provide copies of GSE’s employment files within 14 business days following a request. The Administration asked whether this could be revised so that a Human Resources partner reviews the files with the GSE rather than sending all files at once. We are amenable to this as long as the option remains for a GSE to receive copies of documents in their file.
The session concluded with a review of where we’re at. The Administration’s team expressed dismay that we believe they are dragging their feet. They compared their lack of movement on Non-discrimination to our lack of movement on Management Rights, two incredibly different articles, showcasing their misunderstanding of the power differential between workers and their employer . We reminded them that Management Rights references many other open articles, and thus is presently difficult to counter. Non-discrimination on the other hand aims to protect some of the most vulnerable grad workers. They claim that they are working on counters on Training, Health and Safety, Non-discrimination, Discipline and Dismissal, and Union Rights, but we are unsure why it has taken them months to respond.
In this review, they also stated they will not be countering our Academic Freedom proposal, as they do not believe it applies to graduate workers. We see this as an attempt to stifle our ability to express ourselves in our research and teaching. We will return to this conversation in the next session with vigor. We will not allow the Administration to strip rights and protections from our future Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Session Eight (Monday, December 9)
Articles Discussed
The GSU BC came to bargaining session #8 excited, as it was our final session of the semester, and our last chance for forward progress before the new year. We brought counterproposals on Severability and Grievance and Arbitration and questioned the University bargaining committee on their counters to Employment Files and Union Security. We were able to reach a tentative agreement (TA) on Severability, in what felt like one of our most productive bargaining sessions of the semester.
Negotiations Summary
Our chair for this session, began the meeting by reviewing the results of our first semester of bargaining. We reminded Admin that the Union has written and presented 15 of the 18 articles that have been put on the table this semester and that we are waiting for their counters on a majority of them. With that, we asked Admin if they had any counters ready for this session and learned that they planned to pass two counters. The Union also had two counters prepared.
We passed our counter on Severability first and explained that it is important to our union that both parties be required to meet and renegotiate any element of our contract that is severed in the future. To support our stance, we provided examples of language outlining this requirement from other CBAs for other academic unions. This evidence pushed Admin to include such language in their subsequent counter, and we reached a TA on that article later in the session. This is our second TA and feels like very hard-won progress!
We also passed a counter proposal on Grievance & Arbitration. In previous sessions, we went to great lengths to question Admin about their goals for this article, in order to understand and reflect their position in our counter. Admin initially expressed dismay with our changes, as they did not reflect their desire to have as many chances as possible to avoid arbitration. Our discussions revealed some key concerns and left room for future negotiation over the arbitration timeline. By the end of the discussion Admin still seemed skeptical and divided about their goals for Grievance and Arbitration procedures.
We also received two counters from Admin on Employment Files and Union Security. We were frustrated by Admin’s lack of movement on Employment Files, and expressed this in our line of questioning. We asked questions related to repeated invocations of FERPA, lack of confidentiality guarantees, and barriers to graduate student employees accessing their employment files. Admin’s answers to our questions painted a concerning picture of the seemingly disorganized administrative infrastructure involved in maintaining employment files. While we understand the administrative complexity of this article, it seems that admin is using its own disorganization as an excuse to restrict our rights.
We also discussed Admin’s counter on Union Security, highlighting what we felt were significant steps back from our language. Much of the Admin’s reasoning for these changes seemed to reflect a goal to make this article appear as similar as possible to contracts for other unions on campus. We do not feel that this is in alignment with our collaborative and innovative approach to bargaining. We want the best for our members and hope Admin does too.
Session Seven (Monday, December 2)
Articles Discussed
The GSU BC came to this session eager to continue working towards robust rights and protections for Graduate Student Employees. We brought counterproposals on Severability, Employment Files, and Union Security and a list of questions around the Administration’s recent counterproposal on Grievance and Arbitration. We wanted to understand the motivation behind their proposed changes and to clarify some of the legalese that was added, as the proposal looked quite different from articles we’ve seen in other contracts.
Negotiations Summary
Baxter, the GSU chair for this meeting, kicked things off with opening remarks around the shared priorities and goals of GSU and the Administration: efficient and productive bargaining benefits the University as a whole. Noting that we are pulling in voices from our constituency and communities, he asked Admin’s BC whether they were talking to other members of the University too, as nobody seems to understand where their “uncommon harshness” is coming from. He ended on a note of optimism, expressing excitement to make progress at the table. Baxter’s remarks about the importance of collaboration between our two sides received nods from around the table, including from multiple members of Admin’s BC.
The Administration did not come to the table prepared to make progress, though their lead spokesperson, Chris Lehman, claimed that they have been “matching our pace” this semester. Despite the fact that Admin held nine (now 11) articles we are waiting to hear about, they came to the session without any new counterproposals. Further, after GSU presented our counterproposals and asked questions about Grievance and Arbitration, Lehman brought the conversation back to Baxter’s opening remarks, making it clear that, rather than collaborate, he would rather our two sides stay far apart. “We ask ourselves,” he said, “as you’re proposing different things… if it’s not a mandatory subject of bargaining, is there a way that we could live with a constraint on our relationship with the grad students?… And if it isn’t mandatory, then we don’t have to agree to anything.” This last sentence left a sour taste after Admin’s claim last session that non-discrimination is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Neil presented our first counterproposal of the session, Severability. You may recall from October bargaining updates that we were feeling close to a Tentative Agreement (TA) on this article — it is short and standard. For this version, we even took language from UVM Staff United’s contract, in hopes that Admin would find this more agreeable.
Bailey presented our second counter on Employment Files. We reinstated language around including a GSE’s professional accomplishments in their employment files, as well as memoranda about discussions between a GSE and their supervisor about professional performance. We also introduced language allowing GSEs to review their employment files and seek correction of any disputed materials. Admin’s BC asked about the delineation of professional from academic accomplishments but seemed satisfied by the examples we gave.
Rubaina presented our third counter on Union Security. This consisted of mostly minor changes, and we clarified some confusion on Admin’s team about how the UAW collects dues. We replaced some legalese with plain language to make these processes more clear to GSEs.
Before going to caucus, Bailey led a conversation about Admin’s most recent Grievance and Arbitration proposal in order to gain a better understanding of their reasoning for a number of changes. We were confused as to why Admin proposed to restrict grievances around discrimination and, at the same time, “exclude bargaining unit members from access to any other student dispute resolution process.” We also asked questions about added time limitations, which appear more flexible for Admin than for GSEs, the nature of how the University might be a filing party for a grievance, the language around arbitration that they proposed, and a fourth step that they added to the process.
Admin responded that the Office of Equal Opportunity handles discrimination grievances, and that they are averse to parallel processes. We still believe that such parallel processes are necessary, and there is precedent for this in the UVM Staff United contract. Lehman gave a rather confusing answer to the question of excluding GSEs from student resolution processes, saying the key term is “student” in an attempt to separate the student from the employment piece. We find this language, as well as the language around arbitration, ambiguous. We will clear this up in our next counterproposal.
After a caucus, while our hopes were high for a TA on Severability, Admin returned with a counter that removed the language we took from Staff United. They believe that we should only meet to discuss a severed article if both parties desire to do so, and they removed language about negotiating a replacement article. This move does not align at all with a huge number of other Collective Bargaining Agreements we’ve referenced.
We ended our session with scheduling. Next semester, we plan to meet every other week on Thursdays from 2-5 PM.
Session Six (Monday, November 11)
Articles Discussed
During Monday’s negotiations, the Administration accepted our most recent version of Union-University Committee (our first real tentative agreement!) and delivered counters on Severability, Grievance and Arbitration, Employment Files, and Union Security.
We questioned the Admin’s bargaining committee on their Management and Academic Rights proposal, which they passed to us in Session #5.
After powerful testimony from GSU members, we reasserted our proposal on Non-Discrimination.
No new proposals were brought to the table by either team this session.
Negotiations Summary
In our sixth session, GSU came ready to ask questions about the most extensive article the administration has proposed to date: Management and Academic Rights. GSU members also showed up to communicate powerful testimony about the importance of having a robust Non-Discrimination article.
We reached a tentative agreement (TA) on Union-University Committee, the first TA on contract language! This is a milestone that deserves to be celebrated, but it also comes much later than we had originally envisioned. Moreover, given our conversation with Admin last session, we expected to have two TAs today instead of one… but they countered our latest version of Severability, and it was not as close to agreement as we had been led to believe. This casts a shadow over our first TA, and we are beginning to get a sense that Admin will continue to be maximally resistant at every step in this process. Every other counter we received today represented a complete rewrite of the articles we had passed, changing both the spirit and substance of the articles.
The Management and Academic Rights article that Administration has proposed would greatly restrict GSU’s rights in matters that are not explicitly covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We went through the article and interrogated the Administration about what they wanted out of each section. Their broad answer was that their goal was “to make it as detailed as possible and remove any ambiguity”. However, on subjects of employee rights such as Workload, Training, and Employment Files, they cut our language down to a few sentences. For management rights, they want as much detail as possible; but for employee rights, they suddenly want conciseness. Expansive management rights articles are a new tactic in suppressing workers’ rights and you can read more about their dangers here.
To close the session, a few of our members presented powerful testimony on the importance of a strong Non-Discrimination article in our contract. Members talked about experiences they have had with discrimination, harassment, and bullying in their time as employees. These were salient examples of when UVM’s existing procedures failed in their mission, and made it abundantly clear that our members require stronger protections. Even after all this, Admin refused to take our Non-Discrimination article as the starting point rather than theirs. Therefore, GSU formally rejected their 5-sentence proposal and reasserted our own.
Session Five (Monday, October 28)
Bargaining Session #5 happened amidst our Work-In, joined by 80+ members of GSU and other UVM community members in solidarity. Our BC is energized by the turnout and hope to keep the momentum going as we hold Admin’s feet to the fire to achieve a fair and fast contract by Spring 2025!
- In this session, there was lively back and forth on some previously proposed articles. We had our first tentative agreement (TA) on Admin’s Mutual Expectations, a set of guidelines for the bargaining process. We consider this a win as we maintained the key elements that were important to us—keeping bargaining open to GSU members and no restrictions on speaking to the press—and can now move on to more relevant discussions at the table.
- We hope to TA on two other articles prior to the next bargaining session – Union-Administration Committee, now called Union-University Committee, and Severability. Despite Admin’s self-contradictory logic on being called “University” over “Administration,” we agreed to allow them to use the term University for themselves if committee meetings can include non-committee members without approval from the other party. We also agreed to some minor change in language in Severability but refused to give up the requirement for the Union and the Admin/University to meet within a reasonable timeframe to renegotiate any part of the contract that is voided due to changes in laws or court rulings.
- Other key highlights include our counterproposal on Training, an article we proposed last session which Admin essentially gutted in a hasty in-session counter. We reintroduced specific training (appointment training for all job titles, health and safety, sexual harassment and discrimination, ESL, mental health) back into the article. These are not meant to be mandatory trainings for every GSE, but rather to ensure that GSEs have access to relevant training for their specific duties. This was bolstered by powerful testimony from a GSU member who, when working as a teaching assistant, found that they lacked the resources and training to support a student who was experiencing sexual harassment.
- We also proposed a Non-discrimination article that included language on disability accommodations and specific types of discrimination with relevant protections. Admin came with their own non-discrimination article which was—to put it bluntly—weaksauce.
- Admin also presented new proposals called Management and Academic Rights, No Strike No Lockout, and Policies and Procedures. We are still reviewing these but at a first glance, they are unsurprisingly centered on restricting our rights in a myriad of ways. We are a bit shocked by frequent grammatical errors in their articles despite having an expensive external lawyer on their team!
- As it stands, GSU proposed 4 new articles (Workload, Health & Safety, Professional Development, and Non-Discrimination) bringing the total to 15 articles initiated from our side to date. Admin proposed 4 new articles. Our next session will focus on pushing Admin to provide more counters on articles we have proposed, as we are keen to have more TAs on non-economic articles before we bring economic articles to the table. BC, and the membership, are not interested in trading rights and protections for money in our first contract.
Session Four (Monday, October 14)
New Proposed Articles:
Training and Professional Development guarantees and expands the training graduate workers will receive to fulfill their job responsibilities, including appointment-specific, health and safety, mentorship, and mental health first aid trainings. The article would also establish guaranteed professional development funds.
Academic Freedom protects Graduate Student Employees’ rights to freedom in research and publishing, in teaching, in criticizing the University’s functioning, and in expressing ourselves outside of the University, following the American Association of University Professors’ commonly referenced statement.
Negotiations Summary:
In our fourth bargaining session, our GSU Bargaining Committee came prepared with two new article proposals and a counter-proposal to the Administration’s “Mutual Expectations,” a set of guidelines for engagement during the bargaining process.
The Administration came into the meeting with no new counters despite already having received 7 proposals in prior sessions. After they provided a verbal counter to the Union-Administration Committee in our last session, we optimistically believed we were close to a tentative agreement (TA). Yet, the written article they presented Monday, after a caucus, was different and dissatisfying. Admin also passed a thoughtless and inconsiderate counter to our newly presented Training and Professional Development article that nearly gutted the entire article. The GSU BC communicated our disappointment with the Administration’s resistance to making progress at the table. We also reminded the Admin that we are now awaiting responses on 8 proposals, including the newly presented Academic Freedom article, which Admin said they would provide some counters for in our next session. We hope these will be more respectful than what they have offered so far.
While we consistently come to the table prepared to make progress on our contract, the Administration continues to arrive unprepared. We felt that their haste and disorganization this session wasted time we could have spent engaging at the table. Our GSU BC and our membership are working tirelessly on our contract. We regularly discuss bargaining priorities with members, and we have multiple working groups drafting contract language that incorporates the successes of other grad unions and represents the needs of our membership. We expect the Administration to show equal effort and return reasonable counters. In short, we did our homework and we expect Admin to do theirs.
We know that we can and will get Admin to do better. We will continue to pressure the Administration to negotiate our contract at a rate that reflects its importance to our members by showing up for each other.
Session Three (Monday, September 23)
Articles Proposed:
Union Access and Rights allows the union access to resources that would facilitate its functions and relationship with members. It gives GSU rights to use campus facilities (such as conference rooms), access to UVM communication channels (listservs), and obtain bargaining unit information, time for union orientations, and release-time for graduate workers to do union work during work-time.
Discipline and Dismissal establishes a procedure for discipline and dismissal. We included language to not allow dismissal without just cause. Just cause refers to protections like fair notice, evidence, equal treatment, and due process for discipline and discharge.
Definitions is a short article defining some essential terminology such as “department.”
Grievance and arbitration establishes a standardized procedure for filing grievances when a graduate worker’s contractual rights are violated.
Union-administration committee (counter) was originally proposed in our Session 2, We are pleased to note that we are closer to a tentative agreement on this article. We responded to the administration’s previous version of this article which limited members to three (3) each from the Union and the Administration. We countered by returning that number to seven (7) as our original proposal stated, explaining that our reasoning was that 7 allows both the union and administration to bring representatives from across UVM to the table to discuss important issues. We also countered administration’s language to change the name of the committee to “Union-University Committee” as we believe the word “university” includes all of us students, faculty and staff and that “administration” is a more appropriate term. We will revisit this in a future session with a counter.
All proposals and counters can be viewed in our Bargaining Tracker.
Negotiations Summary:
In the third bargaining session, our Bargaining Committee proposed four articles and one counter proposal to a previously discussed article, continuing to present articles focused on rights and protections for graduate workers.
The administration also proposed a list of “Mutual Expectations” replacing their so-called “Ground Rules,” which limited our rights in bargaining. “Mutual Expectations” still contains some limitations, once again trying to restrict our ability to engage with the press. We plan to counter it before our next session without those limitations.
While we continue to come to the table consistently prepared to discuss, the administration came prepared to fear monger. They lectured us on data security, despite the fact that countless unions have access to and protect union information with no involvement from management. These are not concerns that we share, as we are already following standards to keep data secure. We had hoped to spend more time on the content of our proposals.
The GSU Bargaining Committee and observers were dissatisfied by the Administration’s lack of counter proposals and hope they come more prepared to the table in our next session on October 14.
Session Two (Thursday, August 29)
In the second bargaining session, GSU proposed four articles to the Administration, each focused on rights and protections for GSU members. These articles were Severability, Union Security, Employment Files, and Union-Administration Committee.
Severability states that if any part of this contract becomes legally invalid, the Union and Administration will negotiate amendments without the whole contract becoming void.
Union Security outlines how GSU will collect union membership dues once our contract is won.
Employment Files ensures graduate student employees access to documents maintained by the administration about their employment and allows them to request information be removed when appropriate.
Union-Administration Committee establishes a joint committee between GSU and the Administration to discuss enforcement of the contract and issues impacting GSU members.
Admin returned counter-proposals for both the Union-Administration Committee and Recognition Articles. In the Union-Administration Committee, the counter-proposal included reducing the size of the committees and excluding GSU members who are not on the Committee from these meetings.
The GSU Bargaining Committee and observers were disappointed by the Administration’s counter on Recognition, despite expecting it. The Administration’s counter excluded Pre-Doctoral trainees and fellows, an important part of our bargaining unit that was included in the VLRB’s ruling. The Administration is currently appealing the decision that pre-doctoral fellows/trainees are graduate employees to the VT Supreme Court.
The Administration’s counter also took out language that included all Graduate Student Employees and replaced it with a list of ineligible job titles, which effectively excludes Writing Consultants in the Graduate Writing Center, academic tutors, and others. Further, the Administration proposed that doctoral student employees not in PhD programs would also be excluded. The GSU Bargaining Committee remains dedicated to negotiating language that includes all Graduate Student Employees.
Session One (Tuesday, August 27)
In the first session, BC proposed a Recognition Article. Our proposal for Recognition reaffirms Graduate Students United as a union made up of GTAs, GRAs, GAs, Fellows/Trainees, and all other graduate workers employed in academic positions. Prior to negotiations, the Administration presented GSU with a set of restrictions in the form of a proposal on “Ground Rules”. The GSU Bargaining Committee rejected this proposal, which would have limited many of GSU’s rights, including having negotiations open to members and freedom to talk to the media.
GSU strives for transparency in negotiations. To us transparency means having our members in the room, participating in the bargaining process. To the Administration, transparency is sharing more information with less people. GSU is committed to transparent, member-lead negotiations and bargaining our contract in good faith with the Administration.