Session Summaries

In this session we put forward two counter-proposals: Union Rights and Intellectual Property.

We reached a tentative agreement on Intellectual Property, which will guarantee appropriate publication credit for research assistants and the same intellectual property rights that faculty have over teaching materials created by grad workers who are instructors of record for a course. Thanks to Ari for making a key suggestion after observing our August 27 bargaining session that helped us get this article over the finish line. Based on this suggestion we proposed that TAs who are not instructors of record will not have the same IP rights over their teaching material as faculty, but will have the right to continued use of materials created as a TA in future teaching roles. This is our third article now agreed upon with GW, after reaching agreement on Labor Management Committee and Ground Rules for Open Bargaining in the last month.
We also presented a counter on Union Rights. Here we pushed to ensure that official union business such as representing another grad worker at a disciplinary hearing, can be conducted during normal work hours without a loss of pay, and ensuring that the union can present at school and department orientations so that new GAs are actually aware that they’re part of the union. This article has gone through a lot of discussion between us and GW over the past month as they continue to insist that their ability to provide the union with information about who is eligible for union membership is restricted more harshly by FERPA than is the case at most other universities. We’re still working to resolve some of these issues but have gradually been making progress on a way to make sure the union receives the necessary information to represent and support all grad workers at GW.

GW presented three counter-proposals to us: Pay Day, Recognition and Definition of Unit, and Grievance and Arbitration.

Recognition and Definition of Unit is a particularly important article because it determines who is covered by the contract. Any raises, benefits, and improvements to work conditions we secure in the contract will only apply to people who are covered by the Recognition article, so we want to make sure that everyone is included. However, GW is trying to remove a large number of grad workers like you from contract protections. While we were glad to see them agree to recognize Graduate Student Lecturers (GSLs) as part of the bargaining unit, GW continues to object to grad workers on duty free semesters or other fellowship funding being included in the contract, no matter what work they are currently doing for GW. That would mean that many science students working in the labs who are paid entirely through stipend would be denied a raise, improved health insurance, or anything else the contract would guarantee. GW also continues to object to language that would automatically recognize any newly created job titles that do substantively similar work as existing GA roles. We’ve been demanding this language so they can’t kick people out of the union just by changing their job title, a union busting tactic which other universities have pursued in the past. These attempts by GW to kick grad workers out of the union are unacceptable and we’re going to fight for a contract that includes everybody who does work here.

The Grievance and Arbitration article will govern how enforcement of the contract will operate once it’s in place. We’ve continued to make progress on the structure of the grievance procedure, but GW continues to propose restrictions on the process which would make it more difficult to effectively enforce the terms of the contract they agree to, and limit their responsibility for compensating people if they violate the agreement. They also continue to object to our provision would which would allow workers a longer timeline to file cases involving sexual harassment and sexual assault a longer, demanding that GW should have ability to pick and choose which cases of sexual misconduct they will allow to file on an extended timeline and which will be immediately dismissed.

We came into the bargaining process thinking that Payday would be one of the easier articles. We should get paid on time. It’s one of the most basic aspects of a job. Unfortunately, GW sees things differently. They refuse to commit to a specific date on which payment will be made each month, saying that they want to continue using their current system which has regularly paid GAs late, sometimes by months. Worse, they say that our stipends are unrelated to our jobs and therefore they have no obligation to pay them on time at all. They acknowledged that for most grad workers, you only get your stipend if and only if you work as a GA for GW. It comes attached to the job offer. Yet somehow they insist that this is not compensation for the job, despite the fact that it is the main way that most GAs get paid. Even more concerningly, if you believe them that stipends aren’t part of our pay, then GW is paying hundreds of grad workers below DC minimum wage. 

Coming soon.

In this session we put forward three counter-proposals: Ground Rules, Additional Employment, and Bargaining Unit Information. These are all articles which we initially proposed, and GW countered in prior bargaining sessions. 

We reached a Memorandum of Agreement with GW, on the Ground Rules for open bargaining, and the Additional Employment article now has only one line of text we’re negotiating over. Unlike other Tentative Agreements, which will go into effect when the final contract is ratified, the Ground Rules provisions go into effect immediately since they govern the bargaining process. Starting at our next bargaining session on August 27th at 1:00pm all bargaining unit members will be allowed to observe the full bargaining session - fifteen people in person and everyone else over Zoom. We couldn’t have won this important transparency measure without so many people turning out for caucusing over the summer, and look forward to seeing many more people once the school year starts. We hope that being able to observe the entire negotiating process will make it easier for all unit members to follow the bargaining process for our first contract, get input on our proposals from even more union members, and keep the pressure on GW.

On Additional Employment we’ve reached agreement to allow outside employment for grad workers, with restrictions only imposed to address clearly defined poor academic performance. However, GW continues to propose exempting this article from the grievances and appeals process, which will govern all other provisions of the contract and which is essential to ensuring that the terms of the contract are actually followed and enforced.

GW put forward three counter-proposals on Intellectual Property Rights, Anti-Discrimination, and Union Rights, and made an initial proposal on the Grievance and Arbitration procedure. On Intellectual Property we were able to review their counter proposal and re-counter ourselves by the end of the bargaining session, making changes that would protect TA’s rights over instructional materials they create and to clarify that there isn’t the kind of bright line between RA’s paid work and academic work in the lab that GW keeps trying to write into the contract. This article still has some details to iron out, but is getting close to agreement.

However, GW’s counter on Anti-Discrimination policy remains much further from agreement as they continue to insist on maintaining their policies, which, if not codified in the contract, could be rolled back due at the whims of the Trump administration.

GW’s counter on Union Rights continued to impose substantial restrictions on fairly standard terms, such as access to campus facilities and paid time off to conduct negotiations or serve as SEIU local president, but they have now agreed to our proposal to allow the Union to participate in GA orientation.

GW also provided an initial proposal for a Grievance and Arbitration process, which we will be responding to in order to ensure that the process both covers all important issues governed by the contract and provides a sufficient process to fairly address a wide range of potential future disputes.

Summary of Proposals: 

Union Proposals:

Ground Rules

• We proposed increasing the number of observers allowed physically in the room from 10 to 15, prohibiting GW from keeping a list of observers, and clarifying agreement to instruct observers to not communicate publicly about bargaining to ensure that this provision does not prohibit union conversations about the bargaining process. After caucusing, we reached an agreement with GW, in line with our proposed language, with an additional provision to ensure that open bargaining doesn’t violate the fire code for the room we’re in. This article is now in effect, and you’ll be able to see for yourself at 1:00pm on Wednesday, August 27 at our next bargaining session.

Additional Employment

• We proposed clarifying that work restrictions could only be imposed if a GA is making insufficient progression towards degree or is placed on Academic Probation, rather than a more general and flexible standard which GW had proposed. GW agreed to this change, but continues to object to making this article subject to the Grievance and Arbitration provisions which will govern disputes over all other articles.

Bargaining Unit Information

• We proposed requiring GW provide information to the union 15 days into the semester instead of 60, since the semester is less than four months long, clarified language about FERPA compliance, and updated the list of information categories being provided to ensure that the union is able to effectively represent all Graduate Assistants at GW.

GW Proposals:

Intellectual Property:

• GW proposed restricting intellectual property rights over teaching materials only to the very small minority of GAs who are instructor of record for a course, which we countered in the meeting with a proposal for the protection on IP rights on TA teaching materials as long as they were the sole original product of that TA. GW proposed limiting the rights to appropriate citation in publications for RAs to research done wholly as an employee and not as academic work, despite significant, and often total, overlap between paid and academic work for many RAs. GW also proposed exempting violations of the IP article from the Grievance and Arbitration process, which is supposed to be the formal mechanism to resolve contract disputes.

Anti-Discrimination:

• GW continued to object to , including language which would bar discrimination on immigration and citizenship status, religious creed, natural or protective hairstyle, family status, union activity, body size, and arrest or criminal record as protected by law. They have also continued to object to language which would codify much of their existing policy on sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and rights for trans students, saying that they want to maintain flexibility to alter or eliminate these policies if pushed by the Trump administration.

Union Rights

• GW proposed restrictions on Union access to campus facilities and objected to our proposed language which would provide paid time off for GAs providing Union representation to other GAs during potential disputes with management, future contract negotiations with the University, or while serving as SEIU Local 500 president if elected. GW has agreed to allow the Union to present at the general GA orientation, but has rejected our proposals to ensure Union participation in all GA orientation and onboarding activities to ensure that new GAs know about the labor rights and the contract which will govern their employment at GW.

Grievance and Arbitration

• GW made an initial proposal for a Grievance and Arbitration procedure. While the general framework they proposed is fairly standard, many elements of their proposal limit the jurisdiction, timeframe, and potential remedies to contract disputes, which we will address in our counter proposal. They also included language which would allow management to file grievances, which is extremely non-standard in a collective bargaining agreement.

In this session we put forward three counter-proposals: Training and Professional Development, Anti-Discrimination, and Intellectual Property. These are all articles which we initially proposed, and GW countered in prior bargaining sessions. 

GW put forward four counter-proposals on Labor-Management Committee, Additional Employment, Discipline and Dismissal, and Ground Rules for Open Bargaining. We reached our first Tentative Agreement with GW, on the Labor-Management Committee Article, and the Additional Employment article is getting close. Tentative Agreement is an important step in the bargaining process, with both sides agreeing to accept an article as it is, stop working on it, and move to other issues. The agreement is “tentative” because these articles can be reopened later in bargaining, especially if they are affected by provisions of other future articles, but our goal is to get every article to Tentative Agreement.

GW’s counter-proposal on Discipline and Dismissal is much further from tentative agreement, with them cutting the vast majority of our language that would establish clear procedure for disciplinary action against GAs which would be equally applied across departments, require graduate steps of escalation rather than immediate termination, and guarantee the right to Union representation at every step of the process. GW repeatedly said that different kinds of disciplinary action makes this process complex, but simply rejected proposals for a clear system instead of making alterations they believed would better address the current issues with the disciplinary process.

GW has finally responded to our Ground Rules proposal which moved for an Open Bargaining process. They have conceded the right of all Bargaining Unit members to observe bargaining sessions virtually over Zoom, with a limited number in the room in person. We will still need to work out specifics about conditions of access, as well as the specific number of people allowed to attend in person, but this is an important step towards the open and transparent bargaining process that we’ve been pushing for all summer. Even though many people are still away for the summer, we had strong turnout to our Open Caucus today, in which Union members could come in and discuss the negotiations during a break, and we look forward to everyone getting to see the full process in the future. We couldn’t have gotten these kinds of concessions without people showing up during our negotiations for Open Caucusing. 

Summary of Proposals: 

Union Proposals:

Training and Professional Development

• We re-proposed language which GW had cut which would require all training and orientation activities to be conducted before the start of work, and to be compensated, require notice of all required training in the initial offer letter, and guarantee access to GTAP and UNIV250 trainings at least six weeks before the start of the semester. We also proposed a unified webpage which would host information for all ongoing optional trainings offered at GW, and provided a mandate to the future Labor Management Committee to discuss proposals for continued improvement to GTA and GRA trainings. While discussion is on hold until we reach economic issues, we also proposed a program which would guarantee $3,000 in professional development grants for conference travel, professional association memberships, and other expenses, to each GA. 

Anti-Discrimination

• We re-proposed much of our original language which would prohibit discrimination based on ancestry, ethnic origin, immigration or citizenship status, religious creed, physical or mental disability, pregnancy status or pregnancy-related conditions, natural or protective hairstyle, family status, body size, arrest or criminal record as protected by law, and military status, all of which GW had objected to. We also re-proposed language which GW had objected to, codifying existing policy prohibiting harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, codifying existing policy against sexual harassment, and clarifying how these policies would interact with the grievance procedure. We also re-proposed language which GW had objected to ensuring continuation of current policies supporting transgender and gender-nonconforming employees.

Intellectual Property

• We re-proposed language which would guarantee GRAs appropriate authorship credit on publications to which their work contributed; guarantee the same intellectual property rights over their own work, including teaching materials, as faculty; create a process for objecting to improper authorship credit, and prohibit retaliation for using that process. GW had previously objected to all of these policies.

GW Proposals:

Labor-Management Committee

• GW proposed that the committee meet within the first eight weeks of each semester instead of the first six, and we reached a Tentative Agreement on this article.

Additional Employment

• GW has agreed to allow additional employment outside of GA roles, but have continued to propose language for wide ranging exceptions based on academic concerns. We hope to limit exceptions and provide an avenue for a GA to contest academic restriction. 

Discipline and Dismissal

• GW proposed cutting the vast majority of our proposal to create a clear, consistent, and timely procedure for disciplinary action against GAs, which would require the gradual escalation of disciplinary action before termination, and allow Union representation throughout the process. They insist that having a just cause standard for discipline is sufficient, but we believe having no specified process, especially for performance-based discipline, is not transparent and is unfair to GAs. They did agree to provide feedback for those who have performance conditions for renewal of their appointment. This is the initial counter-proposal so there is almost certainly room to negotiate.

Ground Rules (Open Bargaining)

• GW conceded allowing all bargaining unit members to observe bargaining sessions - up to ten in person (in addition to the bargaining team) and an unlimited number virtually over Zoom, with their cameras and microphones off. GW also proposed a requirement that the Union instruct all members not to communicate publicly about what they observe in the bargaining sessions. They objected to our proposals on the rights of anonymity for observers, as well as our proposals that the Union and GW agree to meet in a timely manner and conduct negotiations in a professional manner. We will be proposing a counter to amend these conditions in our next bargaining session.

In this session we put forward six counter-proposals: Labor Management Committee, Pay Day, Additional Employment, Union Rights, Bargaining Unit Information, and Recognition and Definition of Unit. These are responses to a mix of both articles GW originated and their counter-proposals to our articles. 

GW put forward two counter-proposals on Training and Professional Development and Intellectual Property. The overarching theme of their response to our Training article is that they are unwilling to invest in any improvements for Teaching Assistant training and the current GTAP course despite their awareness of its limitations and that many TAs feel underequipped in their first semester, particularly if they lack previous teaching experience. This communicates inadequate care for the quality of teaching at the university and inadequate commitment to addressing the issues we raised. 

GW once again did not give us any update on their response to our Ground Rules proposal which includes a provision for open bargaining, but we hope to discuss it further soon. If you haven’t already signed the petition for open bargaining, please do! Ensuring all members can attend bargaining sessions is important for transparency and getting the best possible contract! 

Summary of Proposals: 

GWU2 

Pay Day

• We reproposed many of our original propositions including a simplified pay system combining stipend and salary, bimonthly pay, itemized pay stubs, and a system of redress if GW is late on payment and you incur fees. We re-proposed 12 month pay as an opt-in system. 

Additional Employment

• Both sides agree on allowing additional employment. We accepted some language about limits based on grant requirements and reasonable restrictions relating to academic progress but added in language to make sure that was fairly decided within departments. 

Recognition and Definition of Unit

• We repurposed much of our original language to ensure that those doing equivalent work to GAs are also included in the unit, now and in the event new job titles are created. We also proposed explicit language to ensure that GAs taking part in various programs and on duty free semesters are still considered part of the unit. 

Union Rights

• We amended language restricting our access to facilities, the number of worksite leaders, and the ability of leaders to conduct union duties on the clock, which is standard in union contracts. We also re-proposed language about our right to attend new GA orientations which is also standard. 

Labor Management Committee

• Both sides are close to agreement over the purpose and form of the LMC. We accepted the removal of specifications of the composition of the LMC, but added language to ensure its timely operation. 

Bargaining Unit Information

• We proposed a few modifications to ensure that we are provided with the standard information of our members on a timely basis. 

GW 

Intellectual Property 

• They largely rejected our proposed language to add specific protections for graduate assistants’ that we think are needed to address the ambiguity of the academic and professional nature of some of our research activities as well as protect our teaching materials. Their proposal solely refers to their existing policies. 

Training and Professional Development 

• GW rejected almost all of our proposed language for this article. They make no commitments to allowing access to preliminary training before the start of the contract period, improving their training and development programs, or notifying us of opportunities offered by the university. During discussion they acknowledge negative feedback they have received as well as limitations to the existing program, but were against making any departures from the existing program that would require investing their resources. GW did not address our proposed development grants in favor of discussing it in conjunction with other economic proposals.

GW did not ask many questions about our proposals other than clarifying what training and professional development looks like currently. 

This session we also had open caucusing for the first time! Thank you to everyone who joined the Bargaining Committee to discuss GW’s counter proposals and formulate questions to ask GW in the second half of the bargaining session. This was just the first step in showing the administration that GW grad workers are united and committed to achieving a great contract. 

Summary of Proposals 

GWU2:

Discipline and Dismissal 

• This article enshrines due process for GAs accused of misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. GAs have a right to union representation at all disciplinary meetings and a progressive process of discipline including through a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).  

Training and Professional Development 

• This article stipulates that work training be completed or made available before work duties begin, establishes access to university training, and proposes $3,000 of annual funding for professional development, covering conference travel and many other resources. This article is meant in part to facilitate improvements in the GTAP course. 

Intellectual Property

• Our proposal intends to provide GAs with the same protections as adjuncts and faculty and ensures that our teaching materials are our own IP. 

GW presented counter proposals for: 

• Recognition and Definition of the Unit

• Union Rights

• Bargaining Unit Information

• Labor Management Committee

• Additional Employment

• Pay Day

• Non-discrimination

They also presented two of their own article: 

• Scope of Agreement

• Management and Academic Rights

We proposed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish ground rules for the bargaining process, including open bargaining. 

Summary of Proposals 

Management

Important context for the summaries below is that these are all GW’s opening offers, not their final ones. These proposals are useful for understanding where GW’s core interests lie, but we will absolutely argue against all the changes which fail to address the mistreatment and mismanagement that we have experienced and they expect us to do so. 

Recognition and Unit Definition

• They rejected our language specifying who qualifies as a member of our union and want to refer to the election agreement and the three job titles of Graduate Research Assistants, Graduate Teaching Assistants, and Graduate Instructional Assistants. 

• While we are not completely at odds, we do think there should be specific provisions that ensure that if new positions are created that are functionally equivalent that we be notified and that they fall under the union. 

Union Rights

• GW proposed various limits on our rights including access to work areas, ability to meet, the number of workplace representatives, union presence at orientations, as well as enshrining the obligation of GAs to pay dues or agency fees. 

Bargaining Unit Information

• While in line with the spirit of the article, GW proposed some limits to what information the union will receive about members and only requires the university to provide the information sixty days into the semester rather than at its start. 

Labor Management Committee

• GW proposed a few changes about who is expected to be on the committee and what will be discussed. 

Additional Employment

• GW was receptive to students doing additional work as long as it was outside of GW or if at GW through the Office of Student Employment. They included a provision for departments to prevent additional employment in cases of poor academic performance but the language is overly broad and needs specifying. 

• This is a win for us, but we don’t want GW to get out of paying us well because of it. 

Pay Day

• They rejected every aspect of our proposal and merely proposed to pay in a “timely fashion.” 

  • Refresher on our proposal: Semi-monthly scheduled pay in one check for those with W2 income and stipend, the option for a 12 month contract, and system for compensating GAs who incurred costs in the case of late pay. 

• In questioning, they said explicitly that their proposal would mean no changes to the way pay operates in the status quo. 

Non-discrimination

• GW rejected a lot of our language in favor of maintaining their current policy. Some of the things they rejected were specifying aspects of appearance that only apply to certain groups, protection from retaliation, and transgender and gender-nonconforming support. 

Scope of Agreement

• With this article, GW aims to define what matters are academic and therefore out of the purview of the contract. 

• We plan to push back on many aspects of this proposal since the two areas are deeply interlinked, especially because most members are either directly compensated for their dissertation research or receive stipends that are conditional on meeting work obligations. 

Management and Academic Rights

• GW proposes their exclusive rights over all functions not covered by the contract. It also repeats some of the academic/employment separations from the Scope proposal. While some of these rights are fairly straight forward, some encroach on what we think should be bargained over. 

GWU2

Memorandum of Understanding

• This proposal would not be a part of our contract, rather it aims to establish ground rules for the negotiations. We propose that sessions be open to members besides mutually agreed exceptions, outline good conduct of observers, and provide guidelines for prompt and consistent scheduling. 

We proposed the following articles:

1. Recognition and definition of the unit

2. Union rights

3. Bargaining unit information & card check recognition

4. Labor management committee

5. University holidays & closures

6. Additional employment

7. Pay Day

8. Anti-discrimination

Article 1 we define the members of our unit. GW sent us an updated list of union members and included those who were mistakenly removed from our election rolls last fall, including doctoral students in SMHS. As a result, we made no changes to our working definition of bargaining unit members.

Article 2 we codify the rights for unions across GW to form and bargain with GW. In light of the shifting labor landscape, we hope to include this article to protect the rights of future workers.

Article 3 describes our rights to communicate with the university and function as a union should and describes the information needed to identify eligible and current members.

Article 4 which discusses the Labor Management Committee describes the formation of a committee composed equally of graduate union members and university staff, in addition to mandating the presence of those with decision-making power for a given issue of discussion. This committee will meet each semester.

Article 5 University Holidays, codifies our rights as workers to holidays and provides infrastructure for students to recoup lost holiday time as a result of time-sensitive responsibilities, such as care for lab animals.

Article 6 Additional Employment, demands no restrictions on student employment and was accompanied by a powerful personal account of missed opportunities for professional development as a result of this policy.

Article 7 Payday demands timely payment and reimbursement for any fees accrued as a result of the University's mistake. She shared moving testimonies given to use by graduate workers. University representatives seemed subtly surprised; we suspect that they were unaware of the frequency of missed payments and its emotional and monetary toll.

Article 8 Anti-Discrimination, extends protections to standard legally protected groups, including but not limited to, worker's race, gender, legal status, natural hair style or criminal history. In light of current changes in American policy, we dedicated a large segment to codifying protections of gender non-conforming individuals. In this section, we quote commitments GW has made to gender non-conforming students, in addition to the infrastructure and actions needed to maintain those commitments. These provisions include but are not limited to 1) maintaining the infrastructure for chosen names; 2) mandating the continuation of gender-affirming treatment and/or referrals available at GW student health; and 3) requiring continued coverage for gender affirming treatment and surgery in the Aetna SHIP plan.

At the end of our presentation, GW took an extended strategy break. Their representative counsel returned to ask: "how many more articles do you have before we get to financials?”

SEIU contract staff have never had this asked before. We think this is a sign that we caught GW flat footed, because we really are just that good.

The answer? We have quite a few more articles for you, GW. Just you wait!

We know you would have preferred to hear all of this info firsthand, in person. We wanted it that way too!

But GW wants to keep you out of the room where it happens. But we know that when you’re given the opportunity, you’ll show up to demonstrate your right to hear how your contract is being negotiated.

If you have any questions or suggestions about our contract proposals, feel free to reach out at gwugwunited@gmail.com