Session Summaries

Coming soon

TL;DR

GW flatly refused to engage with our counterproposals on six articles, including on Work Hours and Workload and Food Security, and rejected out of hand the idea of having an article protecting international GAs at all.

We returned three of our main economic proposals (Pay, Time Off, and Leaves of Absence), and asked GW to engage seriously with our ask of $54,000 and the need for GAs to be able to take time off.

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on Access to Facilities and Resources, enshrining policy permitting summer access to campus facilities and ensuring that equipment required to perform job duties are provided at no cost to GAs.

GWU2

Discipline and Dismissal - We proposed language to make sure that any disciplinary action resulting from employed work is covered by the procedures in the contract. We also made edits to ensure that job expectations are clearly communicated, that the principle of progressive discipline is upheld, and that GAs receive timely feedback on performance.

Grievance and Arbitration - We accepted GW’s proposed framework in which a university designee decides at what level a grievance is initially heard, but we will not allow the university to dictate the grievance process itself. Our edits are aimed at, among other things, making sure that violations of the contract do not become ungrievable simply because a similar grievance has been brought before (for example, if a grievance was filed over late pay and GAs are paid late again later).

Savings and Severability; Termination and Renewal of Agreement - We reproposed incorporating GW’s edits to this set of articles while rejecting their language that would nullify the contract. We reminded GW that graduate workers here voted overwhelmingly to form a union and negotiate this agreement.

Health and Safety - We heard GW’s reticence about putting specific requirements into the contract, so we limited them, while keeping references to long‑standing issues of serious concern to unit members, such as maintaining a black‑mold‑free environment and ensuring safe elevators. We also reinserted language requiring the university to comply with the ADA.

Non-Discrimination - We have been going back and forth on this article for almost a year. These protections do not cost the university any money, and there should be no reason to refuse to codify them. Yet at times the university seems to be taking steps backward, such as removing protected categories from the article entirely. We therefore reproposed explicit references to protected categories and a strengthened Equity Principle that would require GW to bargain with the union if it attempts to change current policy.

Pay; Time Off - In December, we proposed a pay figure based on what it costs to live in DC. GW responded with an insulting figure that is below what some GAs currently make and substantially below rates at comparable DC institutions, offering no justification other than “this is our opening offer”. We reproposed our original offer of $54,000 and hope that GW will get serious. We also reproposed the Time Off article in full: while GAs in some departments benefit from the flexibility of having informal procedures, we want to ensure that everyone in the unit can take sick time when they need it.

Leaves of Absence - We worked within GW’s framework that allows GAs to take leave from both academic and GA work, or from GA work only. Our counter specifies the circumstances under which leave may be taken and clarifies that pay and benefits would continue under family, medical, or immigration leave.

Management (GW)

Access to Facilities and Resources - We reached a tentative agreement on this article. It ensures that current policy permitting summer access to campus facilities is applied, mandates that the university find a solution for GAs with multi‑year appointments who lose email access, and guarantees access to required equipment at no cost to carry out job duties.

Bargaining Unit Information - We are close to agreement. GW accepted our framework of providing both directory information and additional information to the union and mostly added clarifying language.

Pay Day - GW remains steadfast in its refusal to commit to paying stipends on a set schedule and to reimburse GAs if stipends are paid late. When we pointed out the absurdity of having a Pay article that includes stipends and a Pay Day article that doesn’t, thereby having no mechanism to guarantee that any of our pay arrives on time, GW’s response was telling: “We understand your position, we are just rejecting it.”

Union Dues and Check-Off - GW largely reverted to its earlier counter, allowing GAs who choose not to pay union dues or agency fees to instead make a payment to any charity of their choosing. They also continue to refuse incorporating authorization to disclose FERPA information into the deduction authorization form.

Appointments and Assignments - GW accepted some of our language recognizing that some GAs have renewable appointments, and agreed that award letters will list information about duty‑free semesters. They also accepted that GAs on renewable funding packages will be paid for the remainder of their appointment term if an appointment is canceled, but rejected general nine‑weeks‑pay compensation. GW continues to reject establishing procedures to hire GAs into open assignments and refuses to enshrine the CCAS Dean’s Graduate Lectureship, despite it being a draw for prospective students.

Employment Records - GW stated that there is no system for GA personnel files and that they do not intend to create one. Their proposal will allow GAs, upon request, to review employee performance documents and disciplinary actions if any are held.

Layoff and Recall - GW rejected most of the substance of our proposal, including three months of pay for GAs terminated mid‑appointment and the creation of a recall list for terminated GAs.

Term of Agreement and Termination and Renewal of Agreement - GW counter‑proposed language similar to other GW contracts and left the length of the agreement open.

In an unprecedented step, GW also stated that they are maintaining their previous proposals or counterproposals on: Management Rights and Academic Scope; Training and Professional Development; Work Hours and Workload; Food Security; Academic and Professional Rights; and Savings and Severability. Given how much we have worked to address GW’s concerns while balancing our members’ priorities on each of these articles, we find it unbelievable that there is not one edit that GW is willing to accept across six counters. In addition, after stalling for four months on our proposal on International Worker Rights, GW declared that they do not believe international GAs have different rights and rejected our proposal in its entirety. Between this and their attempt to remove protected categories in Non-Discrimination, GW management appears to be embracing an “all lives matter” approach to (not) protecting the groups it claims to value in times of need.

TLDR: More than three months after we made our initial proposals on pay, health insurance, and benefits in December, GW finally made a counter-offer. GW just made $427,000,000 selling land to Amazon, but expects some people who teach at this university to live in Washington DC on $11,500/year. 

The word that best describes their proposals is “No.” Their proposals involved no improvements to health insurance, no dental insurance, no vision insurance, no improvements to childcare, no reduction of Upass fees, no real time-off policy, no students that will be protected against discrimination if the Trump administration changes existing law, and a proposed average pay increase of just $984 phased in over the next two years, to which our answer is obviously “no”. GW is wrong to treat their workers this way, but they’re right about one thing. They told us themselves “this obviously isn’t the best that GW can do,” and that’s very clear. They can do better, and we’re going to make them do better.

Bargaining Update:

GW brought counterproposals on ten articles, including the five economic proposals we made in December: Pay, Insurance, Benefits, Time Off, and Leaves of Absence. 

Pay: We had proposed a simple flat pay structure of $54,000 minimum per year (for those on 20 hours/week, 9-month-appointments) — a basic living wage in Washington, DC. GW brought a pay proposal that would give an average raise of only $984 gradually phased in over the course of two years, by which point those who get a raise won’t even be keeping up with inflation. In GW’s words, “This obviously isn’t the best that GW can do.”

Their proposal was a 2% raise taking effect in fiscal year 2027 and marginally increased minimum pay rates starting in FY 2028 (July 1, 2027). All rates here would be for people on standard 20 hour\week contracts for the full academic year, with pay rates for other appointments prorated:
GRAs (PhDs): $30,000
GRAs (Master’s): $20,000

GTAs (PhD only): $30,000
GIAs (PhD and Master’s): $11,500 (this would be less than DC minimum wage)
GSLs: $11,500 (this would be less than DC minimum wage)

These minimum pay rates would then increase 2% each year starting in FY2029, but this would not even keep pace with inflation which has remained above 2% at all times in the past five years.

For context, Georgetown pays over $40,000 and Boston University pays over $47,000 for almost identical positions. GW can do better, and they must do better if they want applicants to continue choosing GW over any grad program that pays their grad workers like they actually care about university teaching and research.

Insurance and Health Care: GW’s proposal did not offer any improvement over the current health insurance policy. They fully rejected proposals for covered dental or vision insurance, even though these jobs are a big part of the reason a lot of us need glasses in the first place.

Benefits: GW rejected proposals for improvements to metro benefits, fee waivers, and child care, and the only real benefit they offered was eligibility for GW’s group rate pet insurance. We were shocked that GW did more to meet our proposals on pet health insurance than on human health insurance.

Time Off: GW’s proposal for time off amounted to “talk to your advisor about it and what they say goes.” They rejected our proposal for actual vacation time, and they rejected our proposal for an incredibly standard sick time policy.

Leave of Absence: GW has agreed to a good portion of our framework for Leave of Absence policy which will allow GAs to preserve their remaining semesters of guaranteed funding after a leave of absence, but they rejected our proposals for certain forms of paid leave and cut most of our specific proposals that guaranteed leave for specific circumstances such as medical leave, parental leave, and professional development leave to teach or research elsewhere for ABD PhDs. We’ll work towards making sure that these specific cases are included in future versions.

Recognition & Definition of Unit: We finally have some good news here, with GW recognizing the basic fact that grad workers on a duty-free semester are still grad workers at GW in the same way that professors on sabbatical still work at GW. This has been a big sticking point for the last several months, and we’re glad to be past it, but GW is still trying to sneak in language that could allow them to force any of you out of the union and contract benefits by changing your job title.

Work Hours and Workload: After many rounds of negotiations, this one is finally getting close, and we know that overwork has been one of the most common issues you all have faced, especially those doing lab work. The remaining points to resolve are making sure that PIs clearly communicate to lab workers what their job duties actually are (which GW somehow continues to insist is impossible) and procedures for how and when overworked GAs need to bring their complaints to GW to be resolved.

Access to Facilities and Resources: This one is also getting closer, but we still need to resolve issues that have gotten people locked out of the gym and other campus facilities over the summer, and making sure that there’s a process for urgent disability accommodations.

Non-Discrimination: In prior proposals, we had been continually pushing GW closer and closer to the type of non-discrimination article that we want and deserve, particularly considering ongoing Trump administration threats to both transgender and international students. Somehow their most recent proposal has gotten even worse. In the last several rounds of negotiations we have been working with a specific list of groups which the contract would protect from discrimination and harassment, but this week GW slashed that thorough list and instead just listed federal and DC law that they would follow, neglecting ongoing Trump administration efforts (legal, illegal, and somewhere in between) to roll back longstanding civil rights protections, especially depriving non-citizens of their constitutional rights and defining transgender and intersex people out of legal existence (EO 14168, which directly threatens Title VII). GW is trying to include language elsewhere in Management Rights that would allow them to ignore any part of the contract if Donald Trump so much as tweets a directive telling them to do something. This is obviously unacceptable and not a serious effort at negotiating a contract. Any lip service that GW will always protect marginalized people is just that: lip service. 

Severability: GW continues trying to smuggle in a clause that would allow them to kill the union and take away your pay and benefits the moment the Trump administration’s NLRB rules in a way that’s friendly to them. This is obviously a nonstarter.

We made counterproposals on three articles: Payday, Training & Professional Development, and Management Rights.

Payday: After almost a year we’ve gotten some important concessions from GW like their agreeing to  emergency late-payment procedures and GW covering late or overdraft fees you incur because they paid you late. Our proposal is making sure that stipends are fully covered by these procedures, since they are the main source of income for most grad workers. They’ve accepted our proposal for how to handle split wage\stipend payment in the Pay article, so there’s no reason to not accept it here as well.

Training & Professional Development: We re-proposed important provisions like access to GTAP training by the start of August, barring jobs from requiring you do work tasks before you’ve been trained to do them, and professional development grants for conference travel that is essential career development for many of us. Their first counter-proposal just slashed 80% of the article and we told them to come back with a serious counter-proposal that’s actually trying to address the issues we’re talking about here.

Management Rights: Most of our counterproposal focused on adding language that would prevent GW from subcontracting grad worker jobs to, in their words, “offshore grading farms” that they have been insistent in preserving in the contract and is obviously unacceptable.

Lastly, if you have any comments or questions for the bargaining committee, you can share them here. We represent YOU, and want all the input you have.

TL;DR

40 graduate assistants showed up to grade in the building where we bargained as they waited for open caucusing, to demonstrate the value of our work to the university. GW’s response was to call the police and fire department on its GAs. You can read more about the events here.

Do executive orders have legal force on universities? Can GW comply with government directives without consulting with the union? Could Trump’s Truth Social posts be interpreted as a legal government directive? GW’s answer to all three is “yes”.

On a brighter note, we’ve reached tentative agreements on University Holidays and Closures and Emergency Assistance Fund! 

GWU2:

Recognition and Definition of Unit - We are proposing that GW voluntarily recognizes the union. We also take out the section in GW’s proposal that nullifies the contract if the NLRB determines graduate workers are not employees; contrary to GW’s note, this section will not be in the agreement. We continue to fight for inclusion of students on duty‑free semesters, and we are now proposing that these semesters be understood as a leave of absence. Another fight we are continuing is the inclusion of stipends in the contract. If something looks like compensation for work and quacks like compensation for work, it is compensation for work and should be included in our contract.

Access to Facilities & Resources - We reproposed procedures for requesting workplace accommodations, especially in time‑sensitive situations, and that access to breastfeeding spaces must include refrigerator storage space. We also continue to push to enshrine access to campus facilities for GAs who have satisfied their student enrollment requirement and whose appointments are renewable in the upcoming year.

Work Hours and Workload - We accepted GW’s framework for workload adjustment and added specific timelines, since we are in agreement that overwork concerns should be resolved promptly. We also clarified that the workload adjustment mechanism applies to specific tasks (such as grading a midterm exam) rather than assignments (such as teaching a course). We made edits to language to put responsibility on supervisors, not GAs, to determine what is an appropriate workload and what counts as CBA‑covered work.

Academic and Professional Rights - We expanded on GW’s last proposed language of “reasonable latitude to exercise professional judgement” to include decisions such as who GRAs may collaborate with and what activities GTAs choose to include in their sections. We also reproposed a preamble recognizing the importance of academic freedom and a provision ensuring GAs will not be disciplined for speech made in their capacity as private citizens. None of this should be particularly objectionable.

Management (GW)

Management Rights and Academic Scope - GW rejected our proposed language protecting GAs from losing work due to university restructuring or subcontracting. Management stated, “The University will not compromise on quality of teaching to save on costs,” which rings hollow given their willingness to hire undergraduate TAs. We have previously pushed back on including compliance with executive orders as within management rights, and GW instead broadened this to all “government directives”. When asked at the table, they are unwilling to rule out treating a Trump Truth Social post as a “government directive”.

Union Dues and Check-Off - GW finally accepted that GAs who do not join the union may be required to pay an agency fee. If a GA neither joins nor pays the agency fee, they must make a donation in lieu of the same amount, removing the financial incentive to avoid joining or paying. GW also proposed specific language describing how the authorization form would look.

Bargaining Unit Information - GW accepted our framework of having two separate lists of graduate assistant information, with edits extending the time period for providing information.

University Holidays and Closures - GW proposed that if the university removes a holiday from its published holiday schedule and does not replace it with another date, graduate workers will keep that date. We TA’d this article and will return to the issue of additional time off for GAs who work on University holidays when we discuss the article on time off.

Emergency Assistance Fund - GW accepted our addition that access to funds will never be means‑tested. We also TA’d this article.

Grievance Form - GW proposed edits to reflect the role of OGSAF in the grievance procedures currently being discussed.

TL;DR

GW finally agrees to reimburse GAs for costs incurred due to late wage payments, after we have repeatedly brought up testimonies of hardship GAs have faced due to not getting paid on time. However, this does not address the much more common issue of late stipend payment.

GW proposed a new mechanism for workload adjustment, but one that places the burden on GAs to raise the issue as they are assigned work. We will devise a counter that can properly address issues of overwork in our unit.

We reiterated to GW that GW graduate student workers want to form a union, and the union relies on dues to continue delivering benefits to our members.

GWU2

Bargaining Unit Information - We reiterated that these are basic information the Union needs for organizing and bargaining. We heard GW’s difficulties about their bad systems and, in response, our proposal tries to compromise by splitting the information the Union receives into more basic Directory Information and more detailed Additional Information. Ultimately, GW has to take some responsibility for problems that they admit are their own. 

Grievance Form - We proposed a standard form that is going to be used in the event of violations of the CBA.

Management Rights and Academic Scope - We proposed language that explicitly states there will be no restructuring of the workforce or subcontracting that leads to loss of work for bargaining unit members. GW responded with arguments about flexibility based on convoluted examples, but what they are actually asking for is flexibility to systematically replace GAs. Our position is clear: we will not accept a contract that actively allows this to happen.

Union Dues and Check-Off - We pushed back strongly against GW’s assertion at the previous session that membership should be voluntary because unions can put the university management and students in “uncomfortable positions”. GW student workers voted to form a union. If the union loses their confidence, the mechanism of decertification exists to address that. We have no interest in removing graduate workers, and incoming students ought to know that they are entering a unionized workforce and receiving the benefits of that union.

Emergency Assistance Fund - We moved a lot on this article and accepted the premise that it functions as a framework for if and when the university decides to establish an Emergency Assistance Fund. Our main addition is that access to the funds shall not be means‑tested.

University Holidays - We also moved a lot here, but we maintain that the number of holidays should not be reduced, especially given that GW has said at the table that they have not done so in over twenty years. We reproposed that GAs who work during university holidays to complete time‑sensitive duties should receive additional time off.

Management (GW)

Work Hours and Workload - GW proposed a new mechanism for workload adjustment if a GA believes that a task could take them over the work‑hour limit, and this mechanism could go all the way up to a grievance. But in this mechanism it is entirely up to GAs to bring it up at the beginning of their assignment, even though GAs (especially new incoming workers) may have little sense of how long completing a task actually takes. Still, this is something we can work with to address long-standing issues of GRA overwork. GW maintains that the 20-hour standard is an average and continues to reject a 30‑hour hard cap.

Pay Day - GW finally agreed to reimburse GAs for costs incurred due to late payment, but only for wages. This does not address the far more common problem with stipends, and it reflects an ongoing disconnect between what management is willing to engage with and the actual experience of GAs who cannot pay rent because they were not paid on time. The 8‑day window is also too long, but it is good to see some movement. GW continues to reject semi‑monthly pay and the opt‑in twelve‑month schedule and continues to hide behind their inadequate payroll systems.

Access to Facilities & Resources - GW proposed new language about religious accommodation based on existing GW policy and applicable laws. However, they are being difficult around the specific language of summer access to facilities, claiming that a GA whose appointment is subject to renewal is “not a status recognized by the system”. We will continue to try to find ways to address well‑documented problems our members have faced around accessing the library and gym over summer. We now have a shared understanding with management regarding the issue of GAs on a renewable package losing access to their GW emails.

TL;DR

We voted for a union in overwhelming numbers just over a year ago and, in their counter on Recognition, GW wants to nullify any contract we ratify at the first opportunity. 

GW insists on making the payment of dues or agency fees voluntary, creating a system where workers can benefit from the contract while refusing to support the union financially.

We made a new proposal on Non-Discrimination that forces GW back to the table if it tries to change existing protections, so that GW’s proposed Equity Principle can become more than just vague, unenforceable corporate speak.

GWU2

Appointments and Assignments - We reproposed a lot of our original language that would rationalize the types of appointments currently offered to graduate students, which matters as benefits are contingent on the GA’s appointment. We also reproposed protections for GAs in situations where their assignment is canceled due to canceled funding or other disruptions. In addition, we again pushed to institutionalize fair processes for dealing with open assignments and for applying for duty‑free semesters. 

Access to Facilities & Resources - We reproposed language requiring GW to provide reasonable workplace accommodations (some of which they are legally required to provide!) and breastfeeding spaces. We updated language in our proposal to enshrine GA access to campus facilities over the summer. 

Non-Discrimination - We moved a lot in GW’s direction and expressed hope that they would see sense and get to a tentative agreement. We engaged in good faith with the Equity Principle proposed in GW’s last counter, focusing on making it grievable if GW violates the principle. Our proposal would force GW back to the bargaining table if it tries to change existing protections. We continue to push for immigration and citizenship status as a protected category, and added explicit references to intersex and transgender status given continued government attacks on these groups.

Pay Day - We reproposed semi‑monthly pay, an opt‑in twelve‑month pay schedule, and reimbursement for incurred fees due to late payment. The university’s refusal to engage with the very real experiences of many GAs is disappointing, and we need recourse when we are not paid on time. GW admits that their payment systems are bad, but remains unwilling to invest in a new one.

Management (GW)

Recognition and Definition of Unit - In this article GW introduced brand new language that, if the NLRB or other court determines that GAs or grad students generally are not employees, “this Agreement will have no force and effect, and the University will have no further obligation, with respect to any Graduate Assistant”. This is a kick in the teeth to all 347 of us who voted just over a year ago to form a union to improve our work conditions. Management continues to reject stipends being subject to the contract and the inclusion of those on duty-free semesters in the unit, despite that duty-free semesters are functionally a benefit conditional on service. 

Union Dues and Check-Off - They propose that neither paying dues or agency fees will be a condition of employment for unit members. In effect this would mean that someone could enjoy all the benefits of a contract that the union negotiated while not paying their part. In the end this would undermine the existence of GWU2 and SEIU Local 500’s ability to negotiate good contracts. Their justification was that some unions have gone too far and made universities fire GAs who do not pay dues or fees. When asked at the table to provide specific information about these cases, we were told “You have the ability to Google it.” These stories do not reflect the reality of our union and its goals. 

Training and Professional Development - GW rejected the bulk of our language and instead proposed a bare minimum commitments to train us and notify us about these training. This was surprising in light of admissions at the bargaining table from management’s side that training for teaching assistants is both limited and flawed. We want to make GW better and sometimes it seems like they don’t! 

Management Rights and Academic Scope - We are fairly close to agreement over this article which recognizes matters over which GW has rights and are outside the scope of the agreement unless modified by it. GW continues to assert its right to subcontract our work or create new classifications outside the unit. GW suggested that it is within the university’s right to “establish an offshore grading farm”. If GW is fine not only with not properly training its TAs, but also subcontracting out the grading of assignment and exams, perhaps it is only fair to our undergraduate students that GW announce it to them.

University Holidays and Closures - Management largely rejected our language which would codify certain holidays and protect GAs from having to work on some of them. 

Emergency Assistance Fund - GW responded to our proposal for establishing a fund to financially support GA’s in times of emergency with a hypothetical framework for such a fund, without a commitment to actually establishing one.

• We asked for $54,000/year minimum pay for fulltime GAs! We proposed economic articles. Our main asks are $54k pay; full subsidies (aka free) for health insurance, dental insurance, and vision insurance; 20 days of vacation and sick days; free UPass or equivalent value commuting benefits; and a $3,000 a semester childcare subsidy. Read the attached presentation to understand what GAs at GW make now and see examples of pay at other universities. 

• GW expressed a complete lack of responsibility on Health and Safety. They dismissed our numerous experiences with unsolved issues of temperature, mold, and elevator malfunctions in GW buildings and implied that GAs had not handled their complaints properly. 

• Most of our articles are now on the table. We have presented the vast majority of our substantive article proposals and now we have to focus on coming to tentative agreements with GW on all of them.

GWU2

Pay - We proposed $54,000 as minimum yearly pay for full time (0.5 FTE) appointments and that GW will be required to make up the difference if a GA’s external funding does not meet this minimum. The other important part of this proposal is that each year, pay will increase by whichever number is highest: 3%, the increase in the Consumer Prince Index in the prior year, or a percent raise approved for full-time faculty. We also included a section that no GA will see a reduction in pay when the contract is ratified. 

Insurance and Healthcare - The most important economic aspect of this article is that we are proposing that GW cover 100% of the premiums and administrative fees for the university’s Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP), vision insurance, and dental insurance. This article also aims to protect certain aspects of SHIP and the other programs that exist now, including select non-deductible services, use of the Student Health Center, and access to gender-affirming care.   

Benefits - The benefits we proposed are numerous–free U-pass, a $3,00/semester childcare subsidy for eligible GAs, protecting current tuition awards, and fee waivers, to name a few. In multiple places we seek to gain access to existing staff and faculty programs. Other sections include campus facilities, commuting, pet insurance, retirement plans, and Bright Horizons family care. 

Time Off (short term leave) - This proposal provides 20 paid sick days per academic year, 20 days of paid vacation, up to 14 days of leave if a GA needs to travel out of the country to maintain their immigration status or 5 days for domestic travel, and 5 days of bereavement leave per death. The article includes provisions for requesting time off as well as additional leave for jury and witness leave, union business, voting, religious holidays, and work reallocation. 

Leaves of Absence (long-term leave) - One of our biggest priorities with this article is that when a GA takes leave, their guaranteed funding period is extended and that access to health benefits will be maintained. We propose professional development leave which is designed to allow GAs to take adjuncting or similar guest faculty positions without losing any of their funding, an issue we know has arisen in our unit. The final section aims to ensure that when a GA takes leave, their work is not expected to be covered by other GA’s who already have workloads. Other sections include medical, family, military service,  visa and immigration, and external funding leave. 

Food Security (counter) - We reproposed all of our language in response to GW’s initial counter proposal on December 10th. We think that food security is a grave issue on campus and that this CBA is an appropriate place to begin addressing this issue. 

Management (GW) 

Academic and Professional Rights (counter) - GW rejected all of the language in our initial proposal. They countered with a short statement that GA’s can exercise professional judgement to “best accomplish their job duties,” in line with their supervisor. There is no mention of expression or intellectual freedom. In questions, they could not provide any details about where our rights as employees outlined, only saying that “a number of university policies” would apply. 

Facilities and Resources (counter) - As usual, GW rejected most of our specific language and preferred vague commitments. They also rejected our proposal to maintain our access to GW’s work emails (email.gwu.edu). We made a mistake in the wording of our section on access to facilities so that will be addressed in our next counterproposal. 
Health and Safety (counter) - GW’s counter rejected much of the language of our initial proposal, including their elimination of sections 3 and 6-9. They mostly offered a commitment to the principles of health and safety and a referral of issues to the Labor-Management Committee. They removed our language about the ADA, rejected the role of outside consultants, and stood by their existing reporting systems. In response to our questions about their failure to address issues, particularly in Ross Hall, management implied they had no knowledge of the issue and heavily insinuated that GAs had not gone through the whole reporting procedures. They avoided answering whether they think the current system is effective.

• We proposed the creation of an emergency assistance fund to be paid for by GW and distribute non-strings-attached aid to GAs in times of emergency.   

• GW has been very disappointing on Non-Discrimination. Rather than committing to stand by communities on campus that are threatened by anti-trans, sexist, and racist discrimination, GW proposed an “equity principle” with no method of enforcement. 

GWU2

Academic and Professional Rights - This article is primarily aimed at protecting the freedom of GAs to express ideas and engage in intellectual inquiry in teaching and research as well as protecting GAs from discipline over expression outside the professional context and in on-campus protest. 

International Worker Rights - Protecting international GAs is critical in our current moment and we hope to enshrine protections in our contract. We proposed language on limiting worksite immigration enforcement and work authorization verification, as well as accommodations in the case that immigration restrictions prevent a GA from reporting for work. We also proposed that GW create a 24/7 hotline for immigration-related emergencies. Other sections include tax support, fellowships, on-campus employment, and CPT. 

Emergency Assistance Fund - We are proposing the creation of an emergency assistance fund that GW will pay into for each GA and can provide no-strings-attached assistance in case of emergencies such as eviction, medical bills, bereavement, and property damage. 

Health and Safety - We have heard numerous stories of unsafe work conditions in certain GW buildings as well as recurring problems with elevators. This article seeks to address these issues and provide recourse for GAs. We outline requirements for a safe workplace and propose safety evaluation and reporting procedures, including a role for outside consultants. The article also includes some specific provisions for ventilation and eye strain.

Management (GW) 

Work Hours and Workload (second GW counter) - While there is some language that both sides have agreed on, we and management continue to disagree about the need to specify limits to weekly work hours and for supervisors to attempt to delineate academic and professional research tasks. We believe that having limits beyond the 20 hour a week average is necessary for GAs, and lab workers in particular, to have concrete protections against overwork. Management has not been responsive to this line of questioning and seems to believe that overwork is only a consequence of our academic workload, despite the experiences of our members. 

Grievances and Arbitration (fourth GW proposal) - We are in agreement over many aspects of the grievance process, but continue to contest their proposal language around time limits on the initial response, specifics about certain situations surrounding grievances, and the scope of grievable issues. 

Discipline and Dismissal (second GW counter) - There is an emerging general framework for discipline and dismissal from both parties, but we are concerned about the GW’s interpretation of academic scope, their rejection of time limits on the length of investigations, and the timeliness of performance feedback. 

Management Rights and Scope (second GW proposal) - This article says that anything not touched by the contract is the sole right of the university and up to its discretion. The proposal presented on the 10th is their first response to our initial counterproposal and re-inserted many things we believe are subject to the CBA, including subcontracting, the content of student health insurance, and establishing new classifications. We also believe that GW is attempting to include many professional issues into their understanding of academic matters, which would be outside the CBA. We also object to their wholesale assertion that any existing practices that are not explicitly included in the contract can be ended. 

Non-Discrimination (third counter) - Management continues to disappoint us with their proposals on non-discrimination as they resist any enshrinement of protections for communities that are particularly vulnerable in our current moment, particularly trans people, abuse victims, and racial minorities. Their latest idea is to include an “Equity Principle” which says they care about equity while rejecting anything that could bring them into conflict with new laws, even ones that are avowedly transphobic and therefore violate any commitment to equity or non-discrimination. We will continue to fight them on this issue and create the best possible starting place for addressing present and future discrimination on campus.

Food Security (first counter, renamed Student Support Programs) - GW rejected all of our language which would have recognized the importance of food security, required support of The Store (the on-campus food pantry), and financial assistance for food insecurity. Their counter proposal merely stated that GAs will continue to have access to programs that exist for students. During questions, they argued this issue was not something that should be included in a CBA even though a similar article exists in Georgetown’s contract. 
Appointments and Assignments (first counter) - This article concerns work appointments and attempts to improve the award letter process; protect against canceled assignments; create regulations around open appointments, duty free semesters; and enshrine the existence of the CCAS Dean’s Graduate Lectureship and Dissertation Completion Fellowship. GW rejected everything I listed after canceled assignments and generally seeks to limit their responsibility to provide information and our desire to establish classifications.

TLDR :

• Our union voiced your concerns to Management. GW has been late a lot and we have lost valuable time. They also have been aggressively removing language about transgender protections in our Anti-discrimination article. 

• Surprise! You’re not a worker anymore. We have had people unexpectedly be switched from 100% “salary” to all “stipend.” The difference? Too convoluted for a TLDR. Just know GW’s proposals allow this surprise to remove you from the unit and prevent you from getting Union protections. We are working on this. 

• Another section complete! We have confirmed another part of the contract (Union Rights) guaranteeing union recruitment activity on campus. Woo! 

Opening Comments from GWU2 to Management

We opened with some concerns offered by our larger community.

Chronic Tardiness: If you’ve been observing bargaining, you may have noticed concerns about GW’s chronic tardiness. This has been an issue because their team both arrives late and leaves exactly on time, meaning we are actually losing valuable negotiation time. Management has acknowledged our concerns. 

Good Faith Bargaining: We also expressed concerns about lack of movement on some articles, including anti-discrimination, and have emphasized our intentions of bargaining in good faith. That requires that GW be willing to engage with the spirit of our desires, and accept some of our goals, bare minimum. 

Articles from GWU2 to Management

Anti-Discriminitation

Wholesale Rejection of Transgender Protections: This article has changed hands many times; community members have expressed concerns about the university's liberal removal of sections protecting gender non-conforming or transgender students. This is especially concerning because the article does not introduce additional protections; it only codifies policies that currently exist. 

The Importance of Protecting Transgender People; A member of our bargaining committee shared a powerful testimony about the way these GW policies improve their quality of life. They then asked management if there was a way we could modify language to make GW more comfortable accepting the spirit of our proposal while also meeting the university’s goals. 

GW’s response: GW expressed their desire to protect all students at GW, but their concerns about doing so while also avoiding federal retribution. They will keep our concerns in mind when reviewing this document. 

We look forward to seeing what they propose that can accomplish our shared goals of protecting all students at GW. 

Union Rights (TA’d!) 

Woo!: We are very pleased to have signed a tentative agreement for Union Rights. 

Access to Spaces & Ability to Grow Our Community: In Union Rights, we affirmed union access to campus spaces, and the ability to speak about the Union at grad worker orientations, as is standard practice for American unions. Grad workers are also able to talk about the Union during work hours, as is also standard. 

Recognition & Definition of Unit

Combining Stipend & Salary: This article was updated to reflect our community’s concern regarding the differentiation between stipend and salary. Workers have messaged the bargaining committee to share that while they understand GW’s argument regarding the difference between salary and stipend, they simply disagree. 

Union Busting Prevention:  Saying that stipends cannot be included in our contract adds unnecessary complexity to bargaining. It also allows GW to arbitrarily remove individuals from the bargaining unit by swapping them from salary to stipend. When we met in September, grad workers came forward to share award letters that were identical – except one was 100% stipend and the other was 100% salary. They were abruptly given a new offer letter in the middle of the semester. At the beginning of this semester, this worker started as a member of the bargaining unit, and at this time, they are excluded from the union. This is obviously a huge concern for our community. We look forward to seeing how GW addresses these concerns going forward. 

Articles from Management to GWU2 

Work Hours & Workload

Average Hourly Commitment:  Management wants to emphasize the flexible schedule of grad workers, and is introducing language to discuss average weekly commitment. They also added some clarifications regarding the escalation plan for individuals who are concerned about working too many hours. 

TLDR:  We moved a lot of articles in our last meeting with GW, and reached our fourth tentative agreement, guaranteeing the right to hold outside employment, without hours restriction, unless you are on academic probation. We proposed a counter on Work Hours & Workload, primarily designed to make sure that the guarantees of reasonable hours for TAs which GW had agreed to would also apply to RAs. We also proposed a counter on Management Rights & Scope, focused on cutting out GW proposals that would undermine other parts of the contract. GW proposed five counters: Union Rights, Discipline & Dismissal, Dues, Grievance and Arbitration, and Additional Employment.

Bargaining Update:

GW is on fall break and the federal government is shut down, but we’re still open for business. In our last bargaining session we exchanged counters on seven articles with GW. 

We put forward two counter-proposals: Work Hours & Workload and Management Rights & Scope. 

In our Work Hours & Workload counter we proposed a new provision which would guarantee reasonable hours for lab workers. In our last September meeting with GW, they made it clear that they believe there should be no limit on required work hours when an RA’s employment research and academic research are the same work, as is often the case. We proposed a workable solution that accounts for RA’s total time required to be in the lab conducting research - and we’ll see how GW responds. We also re-proposed sections that would require meetings to be held during regular work hours when possible, and a Zoom option to be offered when circumstances require meetings on nights and weekends. We also re-proposed the section that would require summer\winter jobs on campus be open to hiring international students, who are often restricted from getting off-campus employment even during break periods due to their visa conditions.

Our counter on Management Rights & Scope focused on cutting out many proposals that GW made which would have unreasonably extended their ability to undermine other provisions of the contract so that they would not actually be held to the deal we negotiate. This included their attempts to characterize much of our employment work as academic work and even tried to claim that in the grievance procedure GW’s past practices could only be referenced when they are beneficial to GW’s position.

GW presented five counter proposals to us: Union Rights, Discipline & Dismissal, Dues, Grievance and Arbitration, and Additional Employment.

On Union Rights GW is proposing unreasonable restrictions on Union activity on campus, trying to prohibit any Union activity that is not explicitly permitted in the article. Since Union activity is protected by law, that’s obviously a big issue. On the other major area of dispute here, GW continues to cede ground to our demand that the Union be allowed to present at both in person and virtual orientation events, in order to make sure that everybody knows about the union and the rights they have as workers. However, GW continues to insist that this presentation should only happen at orientation events that are exclusively for GAs, despite the fact that most departments do joint orientations for all grad students, talking about TA\RA work to everyone just as they talk about PhD\Masters specific issues to everyone. GW says they don’t want to confuse non-GA grad students who might not realize they’re not part of the union, but we believe that grad students are smart enough to know whether or not they are being paid by the university. 

On Discipline & Dismissal GW proposed cutting a lot of our proposed language which would lay out a clear and standardized process for discipline for workplace misconduct or poor performance in order to maximize the discretion that GW has to fire people. GW is also trying to expand the definition of what constitutes “academic issue” to the point where it would functionally nullify any potential employment claims. 

On Dues GW proposed a dues collection mechanism that would shift the burden of collection from the employer (as is standard under Washington DC law) to us, which create a lot of unnecessary administrative work. As this would undermine our capability to continue to organize and operate, we will draft a counter proposal that is more in line with standard practice. 

On Grievance & Arbitration, the article establishing the procedure by which the contract will be enforced, GW continues to demand an unnecessarily convoluted process which would require that grievances be bounced between multiple GW administrative offices before actually being heard and adjudicated, which will likely slow down the process as complaints work their way through administrative offices which GW admits are insufficiently staffed to do their jobs. We were glad to see GW move, after several rounds of negotiations, to allow longer timelines to bring grievances related to sexual harassment and sexual assault, but their proposed mechanism through the Title IX office and EEOA still remains too limited. 

On Additional Employment GW proposed some very minor clarify language, and we reached a tentative agreement (our fourth) on this article, which will guarantee the right to hold outside employment, or other jobs at GW, with no restriction on the number of hours (unless you are on academic probation).

TLDR: GW admits they are paying hundred of TAs and RAs below DC minimum wage and they don’t see that as a problem. If you’re being paid the standard GA $5,150 per semester (regardless of your stipend), then working anything more than 14.7 hours per week puts you below DC minimum wage, even though most of us work much more than that. GW also said they can kick anyone out of the union by changing their pay from W2 wages to Stipend, a change in funding which already happens to many people every year. On work hours, GW argued that because PI research and dissertation research is functionally identical for many RAs that working over 40 hours a week is the only way to finish your PhD on time and any complaint about overwork could be considered academic and not part of the contract.  We proposed counters on Discipline & Dismissal and on Grievance & Arbitration, and GW made counters on Work Hours & Workload and on Union Rights. 

We had over 100 people at this bargaining session and need to keep growing that number to put the pressure on GW.

Bargaining Update:

Most of this bargaining session focused on a conversation about who GW classifies as a worker and whether stipends count as compensation for work. These are critical issues for our contract because they determine who is covered and what money can be negotiated over. More than 100 people showed up to this bargaining session, and we’re glad that so many people were there to hear GW clearly say what they think about the work we do:

• GW says that they do not think lab workers on fellowship are workers, and therefore not eligible to be part of the union. GW says this is because lab workers on fellowship are not actually required to do any work, which came as a surprise to many of our lab workers on fellowship funding who are working long hours every day under the direction of their PIs.

• GW says that the stipends provided to people on split stipend-wage funding is not compensation for work, even though the stipend is provided if and only if you do paid employment for the school.

• GW said very directly that they do not have to pay us DC minimum wage and are not concerned that many GAs working their contracted hours are making less than DC minimum wage. They even said that GW’s clear public policy of paying all workers, specifically including student workers, at least the DC minimum wage does not apply to Grad Workers, despite the very clear policy that it covers all workers at GW.

In this session we put forward two counter-proposals: Discipline & Dismissal and Grievance & Arbitration.

In our Discipline & Dismissal Counter we made adjustments on several issues and are making significant progress. We clarified that issues involving work that is both employment and academic in nature should still be covered by the contract’s Discipline & Dismissal procedure. We proposed that GAs must still be paid if put on administrative leave while their disciplinary case is being processed, since GAs should not be deprived of pay without due process. We re-proposed guaranteeing faculty feedback by mid-semester for Masters students whose job renewals are subject to performance. We proposed language that would allow GW to use an accelerated process only in cases of egregious misconduct such as interpersonal violence or sexual abuse. Lastly we re-proposed a framework for performance-improvement-plans, which would be required before a GA is dismissed for poor performance.

Most of our counters on Grievance & Arbitration were about keeping a standard grievance procedure for union contracts and removing elements GW proposed which made the process overly complicated, and introduced many more places for the GW administration to apply their own discretion than is necessary. We also reproposed an important provision allowing people a longer timeline to file grievances relating to sexual assault and harassment. We do not understand why GW has been so adamant in rejecting this common protection for survivors. 

GW presented two counter proposals to us: Work Hours and Union Rights.

This was GW’s first response to our Work Hours proposal and GW has agreed to a good deal of our proposals about limits to work-hours for TAs. However, there are two big issues in their counter. First, since an RA’s paid work and their academic work are usually exactly the same work, the provision they’re proposing about academic work not being covered by the cap means that RAs would functionally not be covered by any contractual limits on work hours. GW also proposed fully cutting our proposal that meetings with faculty should be scheduled during regular work hours when possible, or with a Zoom option if they have to happen at 10pm for some reason.

On Union Rights we’ve gone back and forth with GW several times and they’re still proposing some concerning changes. One of the major elements of this article, generally standard in union contracts, is the right to conduct certain types of union business during work, such as representing another union member at a disciplinary hearing. GW is still refusing to agree to allow this to happen during normal work hours, even though this would functionally exclude many lab workers from participating parts of the union. GW has agreed that the Union will present at GA orientation events, but still want to keep the Union out of orientation activities for grad students broadly, even though many departments do orientation programming for all grad students together and do not have a separate orientation for GAs.

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