Session Summaries

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. 

Below we have summarized all the proposals listed above, but if you would like to read the text of any of our proposals, they are on the website. We cannot post the text of GW’s proposals, but if you have further questions you can email us here or attend one of our Organizing Committee meetings.

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. 

​​Howdy all!

Last week, we had our first day of bargaining. To maintain the democratic nature of our community, we want you to know how things went. SEIU Local 500 told us that if we could come to the first bargaining session with three contract articles ready to present, that would be a good first day. We came with 8.

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