Session Fifteen — (Thursday, Apr 3, 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.