Note: The format of these updates is changing in order to more clearly explain the perspectives of university leaders and the bargaining committee on these nuanced issues. Bargaining updates are intended to better explain the university’s position, with the full understanding that members of the Cornell community will have a range of different viewpoints.

Key Takeaways from the Feb. 18 Session

• The union threatened a strike if an agreement is not reached by April 8-10.
• After the union waited nearly a year, until January 2025, to make its economic proposals, Cornell intends to make a comprehensive offer, including economic proposals, on all outstanding items at the next bargaining session on March 11.
• The union refused to provide information clarifying its Union Security proposal, which the university bargaining team sought to better understand whether the union was proposing a union shop or an agency shop, and the union’s procedures for accommodating graduate student workers who object to becoming union members.
• Cornell shared data revealing that Cornell’s current Ph.D. stipend rate is greater than stipends at Columbia, MIT, Stanford and Harvard, and just below stipends at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University when adjusted for cost of living. The Cornell team explained that, within reason, the university was committed to doing even better by enhancing its stipend offer in the eventual contract.
• The Cornell team made several presentations to the union on how funding at the university operates and the tradeoffs involved, including a presentation on how research laboratories are funded and how the university endowment works.

Feb. 18 Session Summary

On February 18, 2025, the union and Cornell met for bargaining to discuss next steps and the path forward for reaching an agreement on all outstanding open items.

While the university made clear to the union that it was dedicated to finding an agreement on the open proposals, Cornell also emphasized that reaching an agreement will require both sides rolling up their sleeves and working hard in order to find resolution and, where appropriate, compromise. Cornell expressed to the union that threatening a strike will not help the parties reach a mutually beneficial agreement and instead will be counterproductive in this time of grave threats to federal funding for higher education.

The university made a presentation to the union focused on the open items that will help the parties reach an agreement and informed the union that Cornell intends to make a comprehensive offer on all outstanding items at the next bargaining session on March 11. The university also led off the session by offering the union two additional bargaining dates in March.

To help the parties narrow the remaining unresolved issues, Cornell addressed each of the outstanding “elephants in the room” – the key non-economic proposals to which the parties had not yet agreed:

Union Security

The university asked the union a number of questions regarding its Union Security proposal to better understand the union’s position and learn if the parties could make progress. The university reiterated its position that it would only agree to a proposal that honored the university’s commitment to academic freedom for graduate students – ensuring that no student who declined to join the union could be dismissed from their appointments or prohibited from holding future appointments. Along these lines, the university sought to understand whether the union was proposing an “agency shop” or a “union shop” provision, and how the union intended to treat Beck objectors.

• For context, an “agency shop” permits bargaining unit members to pay a reduced fee to the union only for services related to collective bargaining, rather than requiring union membership. An agency shop is consistent with what this same union agreed to at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and other universities.
• A Beck objector is a bargaining unit member who exercised their right, enshrined by the Supreme Court, to object to becoming union members, and instead only pay for the “financial core” of services related to collective bargaining. Relatedly, some graduate students have objected publicly to supporting the union at all.

At the bargaining table, the university repeatedly tried to better understand whether the union was proposing a union shop or an agency shop, and the union’s procedures for accommodating Beck objectors. To better understand the union’s proposal, the university asked a series of questions and served a request for information to the union.

Unfortunately, however, the union refused to provide the requested relevant information. While the union’s website states that MIT, University of Chicago, Northwestern and others – all contracts with an agency shop article – have a “version of a union shop”, the union refused to explain whether their proposal for a “union shop” encompassed the concept of an agency fee or addressed Beck objectors. These are questions that could provide information that would allow the parties to address their principled concerns. Instead, the union disappointingly refused to participate in any meaningful discussion of the issue. Read our FAQs about Union Security.

Management Rights; No Strike/No Lockout; Discipline & Discharge

Next, the university reiterated to the union that its proposals on Management Rights, No Strike/No Lockout and Discipline & Discharge are key provisions for Cornell. These are standard articles in graduate students collective bargaining agreements and enshrine the fundamental rights of the university and the core principle of labor peace (i.e., no strikes and no lockouts) during the term of any eventual collective bargaining agreement. Cornell proposed articles on each of these topics that are in line with industry standard and derived from provisions that this same union agreed to at other universities. Contrary to the union’s claim, Cornell has always presented a Discipline & Discharge proposal that included a requirement that discipline for matters arising out of an appointment be supported by just cause. The union rejected the balance of the university’s industry standard proposals, refusing to meaningfully engage with its proposals on each of these topics.

Stipends

Cornell shared data with the union that compared the current stipend for Cornell Ph.D. students with Ph.D. stipends at other universities – including many represented by the UE (e.g., Hopkins, Dartmouth, Northwestern, University of Chicago, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford) – adjusted for cost of living. The data demonstrated that currently, Cornell Ph.D. stipends, when taking into account cost of living, are already above Columbia, MIT, Stanford and Harvard. The stipend is just below those provided by the University of Chicago and Northwestern University. As Cornell emphasized at the bargaining table to the union, this is before we have even entered into a first collective bargaining agreement.

Cornell made clear to the union that, within reason, it was committed to doing even better by enhancing its stipend offer in any eventual collective bargaining agreement.

Other Economic Proposals

Cornell also shared with the union its commitment to make improvements and enshrine certain premier benefits in the collective bargaining agreement, such as committing to provide fully-funded platinum level health insurance, looking at improvements to transportation, looking into movement on paid parental accommodations, and helping offset child care costs.

While Cornell made clear that it was not claiming an inability to pay for the economic items under discussion, Cornell also made several presentations to the union on how funding at the university operates and the tradeoffs involved. Cornell explained that these presentations are critical to provide the parties with a mutual understanding and lexicon on these difficult concepts that are key to understanding what is a prudent final agreement for both parties:

• First, Kathryn Boor, Dean and Vice Provost of Graduate Education, based on her decades of experience running a food science lab, gave a presentation on the ways faculty researchers fund labs on federal and other grants. Dean Boor provided examples of how a grant from the National Institutes of Health is used to fund a lab – including graduate students – and provided a detailed breakdown on the direct costs (e.g., salaries, benefits, research materials and supplies, research services and travel), and indirect costs (e.g., building maintenance related to the lab, general equipment, utilities, libraries, required lab safety and protocols, and much more) that are funded by the grant. This is an important concept for both parties to understand as grants – including federal grants that are currently under threat – are the primary funding sources for the salaries and benefits graduate students receive when performing research.
• Second, Cornell made a presentation on how endowments work generally, making clear that it is not an untapped pot of funds that can be utilized for any purpose. Cornell explained that endowments are groups of funds that are overwhelmingly restricted based on a specific donor’s wishes. At Cornell, 83% of the endowment is made up of restricted funds, whereas only 17% is unrestricted. The annual payout from the endowment is made from the interest and income the endowment makes, not from the principal – as drawing from the principal would lead to the fund shrinking over time, which would render it unable to support the endowment’s donor-directed restricted purposes.

Near the end of the session, the union shared that it was planning to take a vote on an agreement by April 8, 9 and 10 – regardless of whether the parties have had sufficient time to bargain over the union’s economic demands. The union stated that they would likely go on strike at that time if their membership did not ratify an agreement. The union presented their economic proposals for the first time on January 8, 2025, after nearly a year of bargaining. The union is not acting in good faith by unilaterally setting a deadline before seeing if the parties can make progress on the union’s economic proposals.

The parties have agreed to continue negotiations on March 11, 18, and 25. Cornell committed to sharing a comprehensive proposal to resolve a first collective bargaining agreement during bargaining on March 11, 2025. As explained to the union, the university hopes that the union considers its forthcoming comprehensive proposal seriously – and compromises where appropriate – so that the parties can promptly reach a mutually-beneficial first collective bargaining agreement.

Email update sent to faculty on February 20, 2025:

Executive Summary of Jan. 22 Session

The January 22, 2025 bargaining session opened with a university statement on the topic of Union Security, which clarifies Cornell’s position that a closed “union shop” arrangement is incompatible with the university’s values.

Over the course of the session, the university also presented the union with a series of counterproposals: Union Security and Check-off, Management Rights, No Strike/No Lockout, and Discipline and Discharge. All four articles remained under negotiation at the end of the session.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

Negotiations have progressed into a more difficult phase, with the university and the union attempting to bridge significant philosophical differences over Union Security, the article that will establish the conditions under which the union can require graduate students holding an assistantship to join and pay dues/fees to the union. As President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala clarified in a statement on January 23, the university will not accept the CGSU-UE’s current proposal for a “union shop.” The CGSU-UE’s proposal requires that students who decline to join and/or pay dues or fees to the union could be dismissed from their appointments and prohibited from holding future appointments at the university. Read our FAQs about Union Security.

At the January 22 session, union representatives resorted to hyperbole to counter the university’s position on the matter. When the university team presented a statement on its concerns about a union shop, including the fact that students who refuse could be dismissed from their appointments and prohibited from holding future appointments, the union responded with insults rather than engaging in substantive dialogue.

Philosophical disagreements are also at the heart of many of the remaining non-economic articles, particularly with respect to the contexts in which graduate student workers are considered students and when they are considered employees. The university fully supports having a “just cause” standard delineated in the contract for discipline and discharge related to assistantship duties, but the union wants a role in adjudicating disciplinary issues that are fully unrelated to assistantships, including campus safety violations.

Despite the tensions, the university remains committed to a productive bargaining effort and to reaching a contract that serves the best interests of all of Cornell’s graduate student workers.

Summary of Jan. 22 Session

Union Security

CGSU-UE continues to demand a “union shop” arrangement, which the union has described as requiring “universal full membership of the full bargaining unit.”  The university fundamentally disagrees with the union on this issue.

The university believes that the CGSU-UE’s proposal on this topic is incompatible with Cornell’s core values, including Cornell’s commitment to academic freedom. Under the CGSU-UE’s “union shop” proposal, a student’s refusal to join and/or pay dues or fees to the union could impede their ability to obtain their graduate degree. The university views this as a serious concern and offered a counterproposal that would allow graduate student workers who wish to join the union to do so, while simultaneously allowing those who are uninterested in union membership to simply decline to do so. The university is also willing to coordinate automatic dues deductions for graduate student workers interested in joining the union. At the bargaining table, the university spokesperson expressed hope that the parties can work together on this challenging issue.

Union members responded to the university’s position with hyperbolic rhetoric, calling the university’s position a “union-busting effort.” The university’s statement on Union Security is accessible here.

Discipline and Discharge

During the bargaining session, the university spokesperson attempted to initiate a discussion of Discipline and Discharge. Specifically, the university spokesperson proposed that the parties “do their best” to identify grievable and non-grievable issues at the bargaining table. After circulating a chart outlining grievable and non-grievable issues, the university attempted to engage the union in discussion. The union refused to participate in the conversation and repeatedly demanded a formal counterproposal from the university.

The university subsequently introduced its latest counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge, demonstrating movement toward the union on several points. In response, the union offered previously proposed language on Discipline and Discharge, alleging that there had been “no movement” on behalf of the university. The university disagreed, questioning why the union rejected language accepted by the UE at other universities. The union claimed that conditions at Cornell are “different,” suggesting that the membership’s “distrust” of Cornell’s administration is unique. The union also expressed “a lack of confidence” about future university action.

The university disputed the union’s contentions and questioned why the union refuses to engage in meaningful discussions on the distinction between employment-related and non-employment-related conduct. In the view of the university, “just cause” procedures should be available only for conduct related to a graduate student worker’s Policy 1.3 appointment. The university explained that certain misconduct is so severe that an individual can no longer study at Cornell, which would automatically terminate the individual’s Policy 1.3 appointment. The union responded that the university “will not have the right to end their employment without just cause.”

The union complained that the university was “taking hard positions” and accused the university of demonstrating “a lack of flexibility.” The university noted that the union has taken equally inflexible positions at the bargaining table. The university has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to work through controversial issues, including Nondiscrimination and Academic Freedom, but at this point in the negotiations, the university has “very little room to move” on Union Security, No Strike/No Lockout, and Discipline and Discharge.

Despite the university’s efforts to clarify its latest counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge, the union continued to demand “real movement.” The university ultimately agreed to “take another look” at Discipline and Discharge, clarifying that the university “has no intention of bargaining against itself.”

No Strike/No Lockout

The university also initiated discussion of a No Strike/No Lockout provision. The university spokesperson noted that a strong No Strike/No Lockout provision is a central part of most contracts, explaining that the goal of a No Strike/No Lockout provision is to protect both parties by ensuring labor peace during the term of the agreement.

Before concluding the bargaining session, the union characterized the university’s Union Security proposal as a “fundamental threat to their power.” All four of the articles discussed at the January 22 bargaining session remain under negotiation by the parties.

Email update sent to faculty on January 28, 2025:

Executive Summary of Dec. 18 and Jan. 8 Sessions

Nondiscrimination and Academic Freedom were the primary topics of discussion during the December 18, 2024 and January 8, 2025 bargaining sessions, and the parties reached tentative agreements on both articles on January 8. At the conclusion of the January 8 session, the union also introduced a slate of economic proposals, including proposals that address graduate student Compensation, Medical Benefits, Transportation, and Time Off.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The union and the university reached tentative agreements on two articles that have been discussed during many previous sessions: Nondiscrimination and Academic Freedom (retitled Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression).

As part of the tentative agreement on Nondiscrimination, the university and the union reached a compromise on how to handle claims of caste discrimination despite the fact that that caste is not currently a protected category under Policy 6.4. The parties agreed that complaints filed on the basis of caste discrimination will not be summarily dismissed and will reviewed and investigated, if appropriate, by the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX (OIETIX), or other appropriate university office.

On Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression, the union and the university agreed to enforce the need for teaching assistants, in particular, to deliver instruction that adheres to the subjects they have been asked to teach. The parties also agreed to protect graduate student workers’ right to peaceful expression outside of their typical, agreed-upon appointment responsibilities.

Summary of Dec. 18 and Jan. 8 Sessions

Nondiscrimination

The final version of the Nondiscrimination article affirms that in the event the university recognizes new protected categories under Policy 6.4, those categories will automatically be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement. The article also affirms that complaints filed on the basis of caste discrimination will not be summarily dismissed and will instead be processed by the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX (OIETIX), or other appropriate university office, consistent with the university’s internal investigative processes for discrimination.

During the Nondiscrimination negotiations, the union expressed concern about “significant delays” in existing university processes and noted a preference for shorter timelines. The union believes that a “speedy process is a better process.” The university’s goal, however, is for the process to be “meaningful and efficient.” The implementation of an unduly short timeline (i.e., a timeline that the parties cannot meet) would interfere with these important objectives.

Accordingly, the final article clarifies the process and timeline for grievances submitted to OIETIX, Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, and other appropriate university offices. Upon submission, the relevant office will review the grievance and will determine, in its sole discretion, whether the grievance is subject to Policy 6.4 or Student Code of Conduct Section IV.J. Harassment within two weeks. Grievances subject to Policy 6.4 or the Student Code of Conduct shall be held in abeyance, without prejudice, until the relevant university processes are exhausted or for four months from the close of the two-week period noted above. This four month timeframe may be extended for reasonable cause up to two times by one additional month for a maximum of six months total. The university agreed to use best efforts to complete its processes in a timely and efficient manner.

The final article also addresses the scope of arbitration for grievances filed under Nondiscrimination. In these instances, “the sole question before the arbitrator” shall be whether the Nondiscrimination article has been violated “and, if so, what remedy is due the graduate student worker.” Arbitrators hearing grievances under this article must have employment discrimination law experience and, if hearing Title IX claims, appropriate Title IX training, but they need not be licensed attorneys.

Upon reaching the tentative agreement on Nondiscrimination, a union representative expressed hope that the parties’ agreement “reflects the union’s willingness to work through difficult issues” that are important to its membership.

Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression

The parties also engaged in extensive discussion on the Academic Freedom article, which is now retitled Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression. The parties ultimately reached a tentative agreement on this article, which affirms the university’s commitment to “free and open enquiry and expression.” The article recognizes the various rights and freedoms of graduate workers “outside of their typical, agreed upon appointment responsibilities.” The university agreed to enshrine these rights and freedoms so long as the exercise of such is consistent with the collective bargaining agreement and university policies and procedures.

The Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression article explains that graduate student workers “shall have freedom on matters relevant to the subject and purpose of their appointment” in coordination with (and subject to the ultimate approval of) their appointment supervisor. Approval is not to be “unreasonably withheld.” During these discussions, members of the university bargaining team offered examples of situations in which a teaching assistant’s academic freedom must be balanced with the relevance of their teaching material. Bargaining team members noted the American Association of University Professors’ Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which observes that teachers “should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

The article also affirms that graduate student workers have “freedom in pursuit of their research towards their degree and in creative expression, and dissemination of the results.” During this discussion, the university underscored the applicability and importance of grant requirements, and the union acknowledged that it is “absolutely in agreement” that grant requirements must be respected.

Finally, the article protects graduate student workers’ right to “express themselves peacefully” outside of their typical, agreed-upon appointment responsibilities. As noted above, each of these rights and freedoms must be exercised in a manner consistent with the collective bargaining agreement and university policy.

During negotiations, the parties engaged in meaningful dialogue on various aspects of the article, including the university’s reference to its “policies and procedures.” The university explained that this reference assures that readers, including outside arbitrators, recognize the applicability of those policies.

Union Security

Upon reaching tentative agreements on Nondiscrimination and Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression, the union reiterated its demand for a union shop.

Economic Proposals

After delivering the statement on Union Security, the union introduced a slate of economic proposals. The union’s proposals address Compensation, Medical Benefits, Transportation, and Time Off, among other topics.

Each article of the economic package was introduced with a student testimonial. The testimonials emphasized the cost of living in Ithaca, with union members asserting that graduate student workers “need more money to live securely” and that Cornell has “fallen out of industry standard” with respect to medical coverage. While introducing these proposals, a union member claimed that under current stipends, graduate workers are unable to afford rent, food, or necessary medical care “even with student health insurance.”

The union’s economic proposals include the following demands:

• 12-month stipend rates in the amount of $58,500 (for Ithaca graduate workers) and $72,539 (for those at Cornell Tech) for 2025-2026, with 6% annual increases over the life of the agreement;
• Full (100%) premium coverage for vision, dental, and medical insurance (including dependents);
• Dependent care stipends in the amount of $7,000 per year for one (1) dependent, $10,000 for two (2) dependents, and $12,000 for three (3) or more dependents;
• Additional benefits for international graduate student workers, including a total of forty days off to address issues related to immigration or visa status and one-time, lump sum payments of $2,000 for students on F and J visas during their first semester at Cornell;
• Creation of a Graduate Student Worker Support Fund in the amount of $500,000 for each fiscal year of the agreement;
• A minimum of twenty vacation days per year;
• Relocation assistance for off-site research and gym access at no cost; and
• Fully (100%) subsidized bus passes and partially subsidized (50%) Daily Decision parking. The union also asked that 25% of the parking permits in each tier be “reserved” for graduate student workers.

In addition to these demands, the union’s economic proposal seeks to expand student access to extended leaves of absence. Under the union’s proposal, graduate student workers “may request a leave of absence for personal or health reasons for up to a maximum of four years,” which would provide “reprieve from academic responsibilities related to degree completion” but simultaneously allow the student to “retain all benefits.”

The university requested time to review and evaluate the union’s economic proposal.

Email update sent to faculty on January 28, 2025:

Executive Summary of Nov. 20 and 21 Sessions

The bargaining teams conducted a two-day bargaining session on November 20 and 21 in which they ultimately reached tentative agreements on three articles: Union Rights, Professional Rights and Working Conditions, and Recognition. The parties also engaged in effects bargaining related to the temporary suspension of graduate students. Negotiation of the Appointment Security and Nondiscrimination articles continued.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

An ongoing point of discussion and disagreement is whether the union has purview to negotiate policy or mediate outcomes for activities that are unrelated to the “terms and conditions of employment” of its members. This has important implications for the university since its position is that the union does not have a direct role in academics.  There are many policies that apply equally to all undergraduate, professional, and graduate students, and Cornell’s position is that it is inappropriate to create different procedures and policies for students in the bargaining unit, especially for matters related to behavior, discipline, and conduct that can impact the campus community.

Summary of Nov. 20 and 21 Sessions

Appointment Security

The parties continued to move toward agreement on Appointment Security with a shared goal of clear process.

The university’s proposal contained several minor, clarifying changes, including adjustments to the provision addressing degree milestone exams. For example, the university proposed the deletion of language regarding exam failure “with re-examination,” as that outcome does not exist. The university’s proposal also clarified relevant timelines (these timelines will be calculated in working days).

The university’s proposal made clear that the appropriateness and content of the underlying academic decision-making is not subject to grievance and arbitration. The university’s position is that it would not want an arbitrator to substitute his or her judgment for that of the academy. During the discussion of Appointment Security, a university bargaining team member offered examples of issues that would and would not be grievable by graduate students under this proposal.

At the conclusion of the session, the Appointment Security provision remained under negotiation by the parties.

Nondiscrimination

During discussion of the Nondiscrimination article, the university spokesperson noted that the union seeks protections beyond those enshrined in Policy 6.4. Policy 6.4 is intended to be broadly applicable to the campus community, including faculty, staff, and students. The university has continuously tried to balance the union’s demands with the realities of the process required to update Policy 6.4, which requires input from various campus constituencies.

Nevertheless, the university remains sensitive to the union’s desire for a process designed to address problematic conduct by supervisors that falls beyond 6.4, and the university continued to engage in a productive dialogue with the union on these issues. The parties also discussed the union’s desire for a process that would allow union members to grieve violations of the Nondiscrimination provision.

At the conclusion of the session, the Nondiscrimination article remained under negotiation by the parties.

Effects Bargaining

The parties are engaged in ongoing bargaining over the effects of suspensions of graduate students in connection with the Statler Career Fair disruption. As of the November 20-21^st bargaining session, the parties had conducted eleven effects bargaining sessions regarding the Career Fair disruption.

Union Rights

The university’s proposed changes to the Union Rights article were confined to the union business provision and concerned the process for identifying bargaining representatives as well as the total number of representatives for negotiating sessions. The union sought 25 representatives for negotiating sessions, whereas the university proposed a total of 15 representatives.

Following a caucus, the parties reached a compromise permitting up to 20 bargaining unit representatives to participate in negotiations. The union must provide the union with the names of these representatives 14 days before the first scheduled bargaining session. The university offered that if an additional 1-2 representatives are needed, the union can reach out to the university for approval. The parties ultimately reached a tentative agreement on this article.

Professional Rights and Working Conditions

The university’s Professional Rights proposal contained minor changes to the remote work, intellectual property (IP), and academic integrity provisions.

The university understands the union’s concerns about AI and has consulted with subject-matter experts. Given the fact-specific nature of AI issues, the university proposed that graduate students be granted the same rights as faculty and staff as it pertains to generative AI in the context of their appointment.

The union accepted many of the university’s changes, with some minor alterations. For example, the union agreed that IP disputes will be subject to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the university’s IP policies rather than the grievance and arbitration procedures of the contract, with the exception of situations in which the university’s IP policies are not followed.

The union also consented to university language assuring that approval for recurring or standing remote work requests “shall be in the sole discretion of the supervisor but considered in good faith and subject to the needs of the appointment.” If a supervisor denies a graduate student’s request for a recurring or standing remote work arrangement, the graduate student may request a written explanation of why the request was denied.

The parties ultimately reached a tentative agreement on this article. Work-related travel expenses, reimbursement, and parking will be addressed as part of future economic discussions.

Recognition

During the two-day bargaining session, the parties also reached a tentative agreement on Recognition. Under this article, the university recognizes the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all graduate students enrolled in Ph.D. and Master’s degree programs at the Ithaca, Cornell Tech, and Geneva campuses who receive a stipend to provide teaching or research services as TAs, RAs, GAs, and GRAs. The Recognition article also outlines all relevant exclusions from the bargaining unit, including, but not limited to, fellows and undergraduate students.

Alternative Moniker for Unit Members

During the two-day session, the university proposed “graduate student worker” as an alternative moniker for union members in lieu of “bargaining unit member.” The union was agreeable to this suggestion, and the parties signed a letter memorializing their agreement to this terminology. This update will be applied to all relevant provisions of the contract.

Union Security

During the two-day session, the union reiterated its demand for a counterproposal on Union Security. The university assured the union that it would discuss the topic of Union Security at the next bargaining session on December 5, 2024.

Email sent to faculty on December 2, 2024:

New Contingency Planning Resources

A new set of guidance documents is now available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website that can help faculty prepare for possible disruptions in teaching and research. The documents include:

• Maintaining Instructional Continuity in the Face of a Significant Disruption
• Contingency Planning for Research Supervisors
• Distinguishing Between Academic Progress and Assistantship Duties for GRAs, GAs, and RAs During a Work Stoppage

These documents are intended to help Cornell faculty and other members of our community consider contingency plans for research continuity in the event of work disruptions that could include labor actions. The university is engaged in negotiations with CGSU-UE and is committed to reaching a fair and reasonable contract with the union that will form the basis for a relationship of trust and mutual respect in the coming years. These resources are informational and preparatory in nature in the event of any work disruption, including a strike or other labor action.

Email update sent to faculty on November 27, 2024:

Executive Summary of Session 15

The parties continued to make good progress on several articles and achieved a tentative agreement on Inclusive Work Environment.

The parties are getting closer to an agreement on Appointment Security, and the university team has offered language that gives students the right to appeal if they are not provided explicit written conditions following a “conditional pass” for an exam.

On Professional Rights and Working Conditions, the groups discussed remote work requests and intellectual property issues. The union is seeking protection against the unauthorized use of student work to train AI systems.

On Inclusive Work Environment, the parties agreed that graduate students may request “substantially informative” updates on name change updates in university systems “at reasonable intervals.”

On Discipline and Discharge, the university team presented their position on which types of misconduct should be subject to this article, stating that only appointment-related misconduct and performance issues should fall under Discipline and Discharge, while other conduct violations (including, but not limited to, violations of the Research Integrity Policy, the Code of Academic Integrity, and the Student Code of Conduct) should not. Discussions on these issues will continue.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The bargaining teams have made significant progress on a number of articles, including Appointment Security.

The union has expressed concern about improper exam procedures, asserting that students who receive a “conditional pass” result for an exam sometimes do not receive meaningful feedback and are not aware of what is required of them to achieve a passing grade. The university proposal introduced in this session includes language intended to address these concerns by stipulating that where a committee does not provide explicit conditions and a reasonable timeline, the student may appeal the conditions and will retain funding while the appeal is pending.

Looking ahead, the Cornell committee anticipates that bargaining will begin to touch on economic issues in the coming weeks, which can be the toughest points to resolve in any contract negotiation process.

Summary of Session 15

Appointment Security

A university team member opened the October 29 bargaining session by introducing the university’s latest counterproposal on Appointment Security, which continues to clarify the process surrounding transitional funding, including the process for bargaining unit members seeking a change in the chair of the special committee. Under the latest proposal, students who receive a conditional pass are not permitted to change committee membership unless and until any conditions are met and the exam is passed.

Significantly, the university’s counterproposal attempts to address union demands for meaningful written feedback. The university’s counterproposal explains that, where a committee assigns a conditional pass and does not articulate explicit, written, conditions, as well as a reasonable timeline for completion of the conditions, the bargaining unit member may appeal the imposition of such conditions within ten working days of the date of the exam. Under the latest counterproposal, the bargaining unit member retains funding while their appeal is pending.

In response to union questions, a university bargaining team member clarified that the contract is not intended to infringe on the academic prerogatives of faculty. Instead, the contract is intended to enshrine protections and benefits for students. The union thanked the university for its efforts and agreed to review the university’s proposal.

Following a caucus, the union introduced its respective counterproposal on Appointment Security. The union reinserted language insisting that graduate students “must be notified thirty (30) or more days in advance if they are at risk of losing their appointment on the basis of unpaid financial obligations of administrative fees, except tuition[.]” The parties subsequently engaged in several productive sidebars regarding Appointment Security during the session.

Professional Rights and Working Conditions

During the bargaining session, the union also circulated a counterproposal on Professional Rights and Working Conditions. In lieu of references to “university policies,” the union’s counterproposal specifically identified relevant policies by name and number. The union’s counterproposal also removed university-proposed language limiting Remote Work requests to extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances.

The union also proposed other changes to the IP provision, including restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The union clarified that it is not seeking “omnibus protection” against the use of AI, and the union indicated that it would be “happy to continue the conversation” on this issue. Broadly speaking, the union seeks protection against the unauthorized use of student work to train AI systems.

Inclusive Work Environment

Following a productive discussion between the parties and an exchange of counterproposals, the parties ultimately reached a tentative agreement on this article. Under the final gender equity provision, graduate students may request “substantially informative” updates on name changes “at reasonable intervals.” Under the final lactation provision, the university agreed to provide graduate students with access to chilled storage space upon request. During these discussions, the university clarified that a Students with Families website already exists.

Nondiscrimination

The union’s latest counterproposal on Nondiscrimination would require the university to affirmatively inform employees of their right to union representation at any complaint-related meeting, including, but not limited to, “Title IX” (OIETIX), OSCCS, and Graduate School meetings. A university representative sought clarity on this topic, asking why the burden of requesting representation should be shifted to the university when, under law, the burden sits on the student’s shoulders.

In response to this inquiry, a union representative described the university complaint process as “punishing” and “brutal” and stated that “it does not seem hard” for the university to ask its Victim Advocacy office to convey the availability of representation to students. Union representatives noted that students are already provided with a “resource document,” and the information could be provided there.

Discipline and Discharge

The union’s latest counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge identifies the actors that may be involved in disciplinary action against students, namely, OSCCS, “Title IX” (OIETIX), and the Graduate School. This added level of specificity is consistent with the union’s latest counterproposal on Nondiscrimination.

During the bargaining session, the university introduced a Discipline and Discharge chart outlining the conduct that, in the eyes of the university, is (and is not) subject to the Discipline and Discharge article. As reflected in this chart, appointment-related misconduct and performance issues would fall under Discipline and Discharge, but other conduct violations (including, but not limited to, violations of the Research Integrity Policy, the Code of Academic Integrity, and the Student Code of Conduct) would not. Discussions on this article are expected to continue.

Union Rights

The union’s proposed changes to the Union Rights article were confined to the union business provision. Under the union’s latest counterproposal, the overall time commitment (50 days) is the same, but the total number of students subject to the provision (20 employees) was deleted by the union in favor of less restrictive language.

Following review of the union’s proposal, the university offered an additional counter on Union Rights. This counter contains significant movement on the part of the university. For example, the university’s proposal no longer requires supervisory approval for reprieve for certain types of Union Business where there is no unreasonable disruption to university operations (for example, investigating, presenting, and processing grievances, attending investigatory interviews, attending disciplinary meetings, and attending Union meetings and trainings).

The union pushed back on university language specifying that employees may request time off “without loss of pay” to attend conventions and trainings. The university also retained the 50 working day cap on these activities. In response to the university’s proposal, a union representative noted that the unit is not comprised of hourly workers who clock in and clock out, and she insisted that unit members could be trusted to make up hours missed.

The university ultimately returned to the bargaining table with three bullet points for the union on bargaining leave. The university emphasized the importance of (1) reasonable notice, (2) a clear understanding of what constitutes an unreasonable interruption of operations/duties, and (3) reasonable mitigation efforts. These points are intended to define the “least restrictive alternative” on the topic of bargaining leave.

Bargaining Unit Members

Finally, the union is seeking a more favorable moniker for its membership. The parties will work together to find suitable terminology. One potential alternative to “bargaining unit members” is “members of the bargaining unit.” Another option is “graduate student workers.”

Email update sent to faculty on November 8, 2024:

Executive Summary of Sessions 13 and 14

In sessions on September 19 and October 9, the bargaining teams made incremental progress on such articles as Appointment Security, Discipline and Discharge, and Inclusive Work Environment.

Discussions around the Appointment Security article were extensive, focused in large part on transitional funding. Among other requests, the union has asked for a clear process for when students lose good academic standing, and the university has provided a proposal. The union also asked that the university to provide 30 days pay and benefits if a student were to fail a Q, A, or M exam at the very end of a term and therefore lose stipend support with little time to plan. Since this request has an economic component, the university has asked to reserve this topic for future economic discussions.

The parties have not yet reached an agreement on Discipline and Discharge, a set of very complicated issues. The union conceded that academic performance is the sole purview of the faculty, so long as the processes around academic discipline are outlined in the Appointment Security article. However, the union continues to hold that other non-employment related causes for discipline should be held to “just cause” standards, including those that relate to student code of conduct violations.

On the Inclusive Work Environment article, there is agreement that the time it takes the university to update records across campus related to sex, gender, name, and pronoun changes should be short, and the parties are working through the issue. The university has provided a proposal that addresses several topics, including gender equity, restroom equity, and lactation rooms.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The Discipline and Discharge article, and the types of conduct that ought to be subject to “just cause” standards, continue to be focuses of discussion. The university maintains that just cause is a workplace standard and should not apply to disciplinary matters having to do with academics or the student code of conduct. The university has proposed language that states, “employees shall not be disciplined, suspended, or discharged, for matters arising out of their appointment without just cause.” The university team remains committed to reaching a resolution. Negotiations will continue.

In sessions 13 and 14, the bargaining teams also discussed proposals and counterproposals on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions. The Cornell team has offered a proposal that asserts that requests for access to available, unassigned and common office space designated for graduate assistants, as determined by the relevant department, shall not be unreasonably denied. The proposal also includes new language regarding remote work, in which the university agrees to consider, in good faith, an assistant’s request for a remote work arrangement within the United States in the event of an extraordinary, unforeseen circumstance. Such requests shall not be denied for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Summary of Session 13

Appointment Security

The bulk of the bargaining session was dedicated to negotiating the Appointment Security provision, which addresses, among other topics, graduate students’ access to transitional funding. A union representative introduced the latest counterproposal, noting that the union prepared the proposal with five key priorities in mind: (1) guaranteed funding for graduate students in good academic standing, (2) guaranteed funding in the event of an abrupt chair resignation, (3) a transparent process for moving graduates into “bad academic standing,” (4) two months of funding for graduate students who receive a negative evaluation and need time to get back on track or wish to work under a new advisor, and (5) 30 days of pay before termination.

The union walked the university through each step in the union’s proposed process, noting that guidelines for placing students into “bad academic standing” should be “explicit, written, and reasonable.” The union wants to ensure that students have “a chance to improve in a good environment.”

The parties subsequently engaged in a detailed dialogue regarding the Appointment Security provision, which included the opportunity for both parties to raise and discuss key questions. For example, the university pushed on their proposal that a graduate student could never be withdrawn for having a large unpaid bursar bill. The union indicated that it “will not agree” that the university can terminate employment of a graduate student based on unpaid expenditures. The union agreed, however, that the university could charge non-payers interest or put holds on their accounts.

The union sought clarification on appeals involving international students. A Cornell team member offered an example of a hypothetical student who fails an A exam in May without opportunity for reexamination. The act of appealing in and of itself would not allow the university to continue certifying them as a full-time student. Therefore, the student could appeal to rejoin Cornell as a full-time student, but the university cannot sustain an enrolled status solely for the purpose of continuing an assistantship while an appeal is considered. Enrollment must be academically appropriate. The university also responded to the union’s proposal on appointment changes related to immigration issues, noting that the university struck certain language that it believes is prohibited by law.

Toward the conclusion of the bargaining session, the parties engaged in a productive sidebar on outstanding Appointment Security issues. The parties are largely in agreement on concept, and the university intends to provide a revised counterproposal to the union in the coming days.

Discipline and Discharge

At the bargaining session, the union also offered a counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge, noting that the counterproposal contains a “huge concession.” The union is willing to concede that academic performance discipline “won’t be covered by just cause,” but this concession is contingent on having the processes outlined in the Appointment Security proposal. A union team member noted that union membership cares “very deeply” about this issue.

Following this discussion, another union representative offered a brief testimonial about helping five graduate students change labs at the university. The student indicated that graduate students are seeking “process and clarity” and “basic empathy.” In response, the university affirmed that it is in “uniform agreement” regarding the importance of transitional funding, clarity, and process, noting that bargaining can be an illuminating and transformative process for management

Union Rights

During the bargaining session, the university introduced its counterproposal on Union Rights. A university team member introduced the university’s changes to the Union Business proposal, which requires the designation of union stewards. The university’s counterproposal allows up to twenty employees per calendar year to request time off, without loss of pay, from their supervisor to attend union conventions, conferences, and trainings, so long as the time off does not interfere with teaching or research responsibilities.

In the course of this discussion, a union representative interjected to seek clarification on access to union representation in Title IX proceedings. The university team plans to discuss and respond to the union on this issue.

Inclusive Work Environment

The Inclusive Work Environment provision addresses various topics, including gender equity, restroom equity, religious practice, and lactation. The union introduced its latest counterproposal on Inclusive Work Environment, asserting that the university’s last proposal was “inadequate” to address various issues, including purported “delays” in updates facilitated by the university registrar.

In its proposal, the union seeks various documents from the university, including a “publicly available list of single-user restrooms, all-gender restrooms and facilities, and all diaper changing stations on campus.” The union also seeks freely available menstrual products in all facilities and disposal units in all stalls.

With respect to the Registrar’s purported “delays,” a member of the union team explained that the union wants the registrar and other centralized data sources to update “more frequently” so that name changes and other requested updates propagate or “ripple” through related systems in a timely and efficient manner. The union believes that the registrar’s system is central to this process. The university agrees that data systems should reflect student’s preferred name and sex where legally permitted. A Cornell team member explained that PeopleSoft serves as the data system of record, and there are many other data systems that link to it. The key is to confirm that the software is pulling data from the correct fields. The university acknowledged that there are some technical limitations, especially with outside vendors. As an example, a change to a student’s name or sex may not automatically be accepted by Aetna, the SHP insurance vendor. The university is working on its internal systems to ensure that they communicate the correct information. The university is committed to helping students navigate these issues, and it is working on a counterproposal that addresses the union’s concerns, including instructions on how students can notify partners like Aetna, if needed.

Summary of Session 14

No Strike No Lockout

The union introduced its latest counterproposal on No Strike No Lockout. The graduate student introducing the provision complained that union cannot trust the university. She asserted that the university has “disregarded” its agreements with the union, and she claimed that the union is “there to bargain a contract that it intends to enforce.”

Upon receiving copies of the UE’s counterproposals, the university rejected the No Strike No Lockout provision outright and requested a brief caucus to review the other articles.

Appointment Security

During the bargaining session, the university provided several comprehensive counterproposals to the union, including a counterproposal on Appointment Security. The university’s latest proposal includes new language regarding transitional funding for students in good academic standing seeking a special committee change.

The proposal explains that bargaining unit members in good academic standing have a right to transitional funding if they need or wish to change their special committee. However, transitional funding is not permitted for special committee changes between the date the A exam is scheduled and the date the A exam results are finalized. This proposal is consistent with productive sidebars that have occurred between the respective bargaining teams.

The university’s proposal also addresses the procedure associated with loss of good academic standing. The union previously asked the university to provide 30 days of pre-termination pay and benefits where no viable path to degree completion exists. The university’s proposal reserves this topic for future economic discussions given the costs associated with the union’s request.

Discipline and Discharge

When introducing the university’s latest counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge, the university’s representative underscored that this is a very complicated issue. Nevertheless, the university remains committed to figuring it out. The university’s representative explained that just cause is a workplace standard, and that the university is not intending to subvert just cause in its policies. The university’s proposal expressly states that “employees shall not be disciplined, suspended, or discharged, for matters arising out of their appointment without just cause.”

A member of the UE team expressed disappointment with the university’s proposal and that they “cannot see a path forward” where the university retains unilateral decision-making power.

Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions

The university also introduced a counterproposal on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions. Pursuant to the proposal, graduate student requests for access to available, unassigned and common office space designated for graduate assistants, as determined by the relevant department, shall not be unreasonably denied.

The university’s proposal also includes new language regarding remote work. Under the latest proposal, the university agrees to consider, in good faith, an employee’s request for a remote work arrangement within the United States in the event of an extraordinary, unforeseen circumstance. Such requests shall not be denied for arbitrary and capricious reasons. The university’s position is that Cornell is an in-person institution, so the default modality of assistantship duties is in-person, but supervisors can offer flexibility if the duties allow.

Academic integrity and professional feedback are also addressed in the university’s latest Professional Rights proposal.

Inclusive Work Environment

The university’s latest proposal on Inclusive Work Environment addresses several topics, including gender equity, restroom equity, and lactation. The university reserved the union’s request for free menstrual products for future economic discussions.

The union thanked the university for its proposals but implied that the parties have a “big problem” when it comes to the academic/employment distinction. In order to understand where the union stands on this issue, the university spokesperson posed a hypothetical to the union, seeking the union’s position on a situation in which a graduate worker engages in research misconduct with respect to their own research, not appointment-related work. How would the union involve itself in this purely academic issue?

The university explained that it is uncomfortable bringing such incidents under the contract, as the misconduct in the hypothetical is “entirely unrelated” to the student’s appointment. The university asked the union to consider this question, explaining that the union need not answer this question now.

Discipline and Discharge

Following a lunchtime caucus, the union submitted a counterproposal that indicates that employees “shall not be disciplined, suspended, or discharged without just cause.” According to the union, a traffic infraction meted to a graduate student for “speeding through campus”—a matter that is entirely unrelated to a student’s appointment—would require just cause. Academic matters, on the other hand, would fall under the Appointment Security procedures outlined by separate article

Email update sent to faculty on October 30, 2024:

Executive Summary of Session 12

The bargaining teams discussed several articles in this session and arrived at tentative agreements on Bargaining Unit Information and Severability.

The union introduced a counterproposal on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions that states requests for remote work “shall not be unreasonably denied.” The union also sought assurance that assistants will be entitled to a meeting with their direct supervisor (PI or teaching instructor) each semester.

The groups discussed the union’s counterproposal Bargaining Unit Information, with the union requesting access to local mailing addresses, employment details, and visa or work permit type for members of the bargaining unit.

On Discipline and Discharge, conversations centered around the distinction between discipline for non-employment-related reasons like conduct violations and academics (which, the Cornell team holds, should not be subject to bargaining) and discipline for employment reasons. The union holds that if an assistant is expelled for non-employment-related reasons then they are terminated from their jobs, and therefore the eventual contract should delineate all processes around discipline for these students. The university team reiterated its stance that the eventual contract should have no jurisdiction over academic matters.

The bargaining teams discussed Appointment Security at length, focusing on Section 3 of the university counterproposal, which addresses transitional funding as it relates to academic standing. The union asserts that often students are unaware of how they have fallen out of good academic standing and that the reasons that assistants would be denied transitional funding for academic reasons must be spelled out in detail. The Cornell team provided a counterproposal that entitles assistants with “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” SPR evaluations to a three-month improvement timeline, during which the member is entitled to monthly check-ins with their advisor.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The bargaining teams are working on a slate of issues that are tightly integrated with academics.

On the matter of remote work, the union has demanded that requests for students to work remotely “shall not be unreasonably denied.” Cornell’s position is that teaching and research duties are, by default, in-person but students and supervisors can arrange for some tasks to be done remotely if that is appropriate.

Union bargaining team members expressed concerns that some students are pressured to falsify data or hide research misconduct. Cornell takes the strongest position against any sort of research misconduct and expects that any instance of suspected misconduct be reported at once. Union members also asserted that some students are unable to meet with their advisors, and the university team confirmed that students should meet with their advisor and/or supervisor regularly.

The bargaining teams are making progress on Appointment Security. For the union bargaining team, concerns center around the risk of being abruptly terminated from an assistantship for academic or disciplinary reasons. The university team agrees that students deserve due process, transparency, and fairness, but that faculty have sole purview to assess academic progress via A, M, Q and defense exams, and must also assess progress regularly using the SPR and regular check-ins. If a student fails a milestone exam, they could reasonably be dismissed from their program and therefore be ineligible to hold a future assistantship. The bargaining team holds that, outside of those examination milestones, if a student is not meeting expectations, they must be clearly informed and given an opportunity to make improvements. The bargaining teams are exploring a plan that would promise a period of transitional funding to allow students to seek a new advisor if their funding is terminated abruptly without clear advance communication and opportunity to improve.  There is more work to do on this important topic.

Summary

The union opened the September 4, 2024 bargaining session by introducing its latest counterproposals on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions and Bargaining Unit Information.

Privacy Rights and Workplace Conditions

A union representative introduced the union’s counterproposal on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions, noting that the parties are close to agreement on several sections of this article. Notably, the union asked the university to agree that requests for remote work “shall not be unreasonably denied.” The union also sought assurance that employees shall be entitled to a meeting with their direct supervisor (PI or teaching instructor) each term. The union claimed that some students wait over six months to meet with their advisor.

In addition to these changes, the union inserted language addressing the use of AI and revised the section on Academic Integrity to indicate that employees shall not be retaliated against for reporting academic dishonesty.

Subsections on Work-related Travel Expenses & Reimbursement and Parking Access have been reserved for future discussion of economic proposals.

Bargaining Unit Information

Following discussion of Privacy Rights and Workplace Conditions, the union introduced its counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information. The union sought the addition of local mailing address to the list of information that will be shared with the union. In making this request, the union affirmed its commitment to data security, noting their use of robust firewalls.

A university team member explained that local mailing address is not part of directory information at Cornell. Due to the constraints of FERPA, the university noted that it may be necessary to get an order that requires the provision of this information, and the union thanked the university for this clarification.

The union also requested a “separate list” of employees’ personal emails, visa or work permit type and status (if applicable), rate of pay, pay period, department or program where assistantship is held, and pay basis. The union stated that the goal of this request is to “minimize the administrative burden on both sides.”

Following a caucus, the university returned to the table with a revised proposal on Bargaining Unit Information that removes local mailing address from the list of directory information but provides for the provision of local mailing address in an acceptable, alternative manner via affirmative disclosure by the student. The union agreed to consider this proposal, and the parties ultimately reached a tentative agreement on this article.

Discipline and Discharge

During the bargaining session, the union sought clarification on the university’s previously circulated counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge. Specifically, a union team member requested clarification on “non-employment” reasons for discharge.

The university explained that if a student engaged in dissertation research engages in academic misconduct, the consequence of that misconduct could be dismissal from the program. There is no question that this kind of misconduct could impact the student’s ability to hold a TA position. There are some purely academic issues that are so severe that they result in expulsion, and therefore the student can no longer be an employee at Cornell. The university’s position is that a case like that would not be subject to the grievance process because it occurred exclusively in the academic sphere.

A union team member noted that the UE has agreed to such language in other contracts that it “will not” agree to such language here at Cornell. The union is focused on the “impact on working conditions.”

To provide additional clarity around the university’s proposed language, Associate Dean for Administration Jason Kahabka provided a series of progressively more serious examples of non-employment-related disciplinary issues, including (1) stealing pages from library books, (2) moving into the library/disrupting library patrons, (3) stealing a laptop, and (4) use of a racial slur during an ultimate frisbee game. The union team member responded that what the union cares about is how the discipline impacts working conditions. The union reiterated that it “will not agree” that the university can take away students’ pay without just cause.

A Cornell team member noted that where there is a “level of discipline involved short of expulsion,” the university is “very willing” to discuss how to minimize the impact on the individual’s terms and conditions of employment. They pointed to the temporarily suspended graduate students as an example of a situation where the university was willing to bargain over the effects of the temporary suspension.

The Cornell team member reiterated that the university’s position is that the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) has no jurisdiction over academic matters. The union asserted that the union’s position still stands: Any discipline that impacts employment requires just cause.

Appointment Security

During the session, the university offered a counterproposal on Appointment Security. A Cornell team member outlined the university’s intention, which is to separate the provisions on guaranteed funding from those regarding transitional funding.

Section 3 of the university counterproposal addresses transitional funding as it relates to academic standing. This section offers five scenarios under which a student would not be eligible for transitional funding. These scenarios include (1) when a student fails a qualifying exam and is ineligible for reexamination, and (2) when a student fails to meet enumerated academic milestones. After a bargaining unit member is determined to no longer be in good academic standing by their field or special committee, they may request a meeting with their Special Committee Chair, Special Committee Members, and DGS to discuss the potential impact on the terms and conditions of their appointment. At the bargaining unit member’s request, they may bring a support person with them and such person may be a union representative.

During this discussion, Associate Dean Jason Kahabka offered examples of existing processes related to committees and examinations. A member of the union team interjected, complaining that the graduate diversity committee on which she serves “talks about revising handbooks every year and never does anything” and asserting that the graduate students are “at the table to establish these processes.” Another student interjected, complaining that certain departments “do not have handbooks.”

The union’s primary complaint is that the process underlying the exceptions to transitional funding must, in the eyes of the union, be spelled out in detail. A union team member stated, “these are the processes that concern our [union] folks.” The union member went on to complain that students are not provided with clear feedback, even in the wake of key exams. Per this individual, some students wait “weeks” for exam outcome information and then are “pulled into meetings with their advisor” and encouraged to leave the university with a terminal master’s degree. The union representative insists that this process must be developed in collaboration with the union.

A Cornell team member noted that the parties disagree on a critical point, and that is where the union’s involvement in this process should be. The union insists that it is not trying to “intervene” in advisor meetings or alter the standards of a particular discipline. Instead, the union seeks to memorialize the process. The university acknowledged the union’s concerns and offered to incorporate as much of the union’s process as is feasible.

The university attempted to accommodate as much of the union’s process as possible through additional revision. The university’s revised counterproposal entitles unit members with “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” SPR evaluations to a three-month improvement timeline, during which the member is entitled to monthly check-ins with their advisor. Deficiencies, and a plan for getting back on track, would be documented. The union stated that it “appreciates the movement” on this topic, and this article remains under negotiation.

Management Rights

The union provided a counterproposal on Management Rights during the bargaining session, but the parties did not discuss this proposal at the table.

Union Security

During the session, a union team member noted that it is “very important” to the union to see progress on Union Security. The university agreed to prioritize this conversation but noted that the discussion would not happen at this session.

Severability

The parties reached a tentative agreement on this article, which states that if any part of the CBA is found to conflict with law, that provision will be deemed deleted from the Agreement and the remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain in force.

Email update sent to faculty on September 10, 2024:

Executive Summary of Session 11

The August 20 bargaining session was productive, leading to tentative agreements on several articles.

A significant development was the tentative agreement on Workload. The bargaining teams agreed to language that establishes that tasks assigned to assistants above and beyond their assistantship hours must be aligned with the student’s academic progress. This requirement represents a significant shift, particularly with respect to duties for graduate research assistants (GRAs).

The bargaining teams discussed revisions to the Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions article that attempt to address graduate student requests for remote work and flexibility while keeping the terms of the article limited to matters of employment, not academics. The article remains under negotiation.

The teams came to a tentative agreement on Disability Accommodations article that requires that accommodation requests be submitted “in a timely manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.”

The meeting included discussion of the Union Rights article, including the union request that “up to twenty (20) employees” be granted leave from work “upon two (2) weeks’ notice” to attend “any union convention or regional conference meeting.” The union team asserts that this would not be vacation time but is intended to ensure a certain number of bargaining unit members can attend union conferences. The university has not consented to this proposal.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The tentative agreement on the Workload article represents a significant development in the negotiation process and was months in the making. The article establishes clear expectations for faculty members responsible for making assignments for assistants, particularly graduate research assistants (GRAs).

In prior sessions, the union bargaining team shared testimonials from students concerned that faculty members had assigned GRAs extra, non-degree-related work that was primarily beneficial to the faculty member. Cornell’s position is that while students might not initially understand why a particular assignment is beneficial to their training, supervisors must prioritize the academic training of graduate students when assigning assistantship duties and be willing to explain the academic purpose of the assigned work.

Consistent with current policy, the Workload article affirms that faculty may assign service-related duties that average 15 hours per week and do not exceed 20 hours per week. Beyond those limited hours, special committee chairs must prioritize the academic training of graduate students when assigning academic work. In other words, work assigned to students as part of their assistantships can include an average of 15 hours per week of tasks in service to the university, the academic department, and the research group, but, as stated in the agreement, further assignments,  “must primarily benefit the degree progress of the employee.”

Signed,

Lois Pollack
John Edson Sweet Professor of Engineering, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, Cornell University College of Engineering

Eric Rebillard
Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities, Departments of Classics and History

Wendy Wolford
Robert A. and Ruth E. Polson Professor, Department of Global Development
Vice Provost for International Affairs, Office of the Provost

Summary

The union opened the August 20, 2024 bargaining session by reading a statement in solidarity with striking UAW employees.

Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions

Following the union’s solidarity statement, the university introduced a counterproposal on Professional Rights and Workplace Conditions. The evolving proposals on this topic attempt to address graduate student requests for remote work and flexibility. The university’s latest counterproposal on this topic explains that remote work requests “shall be in the sole discretion of the supervisor but considered in good faith and subject to the needs of the appointment.”

The university’s counterproposal also addresses issues of Intellectual Property (IP), including the commitment to academic integrity, and deletes union-proposed language regarding degree milestones. The university explained that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) should cover employment matters, not academic ones. Degree milestones are fundamentally an academic issue.

This provision remains under negotiation, and related provisions on Travel Expenses and Parking will be addressed at future sessions as part of the economic proposals.

Disability Accommodations

The university also introduced a revised counterproposal on Disability Accommodations, noting that significant progress had already been made toward mutual agreement. University-proposed language requires the submission of accommodation requests “in a timely manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.”

The parties ultimately reached a Tentative Agreement (TA) on this important article.

Undocumented and DACA Employee Rights

Wendy Wolford introduced the university’s counterproposal on Undocumented and DACA Employee Rights. Wolford’s introduction reiterated the university’s longstanding commitment to the DACA program (including the submission of amicus briefs to the Supreme Court).

Following an interactive discussion regarding immigration enforcement, the parties reached a TA on this article. The final version of the article affirms that “[a]bsent a judicial warrant, or otherwise required by federal law, the university shall not provide voluntary consent to immigration enforcement agents to enter any areas where employees work or live, including but not limited to Employer-owned or controlled buildings, classrooms, research and teaching labs, offices, dormitories, and housing.”

Health and Safety

During the bargaining session, the parties also exchanged counterproposals on Health and Safety. The university’s proposal emphasized that everyone in a lab—including graduate students—is responsible for lab safety. The parties eventually reached a TA that is reflective of this shared safety commitment.

In the course of these discussions, a union team member sought clarification on the university’s emergency reporting procedure. Members of the university’s bargaining team clarified that, in the event of immediate danger, a graduate should immediately leave the building and report the incident. The focus is always “safety first.” The cost or completion of an experiment never outweighs the safety of the individuals in the lab.

Bargaining Unit Information

The university also introduced a new counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information, noting that the parties are near agreement on this topic. The university reiterated its focus on directory information, which is defined by the university pursuant to FERPA. Accordingly, the university’s proposal removed “local mailing address” from the list of information to be provided to the union, as mailing address is not part of directory information.

The union sought additional time to review and respond to this proposal in light of the NLRB general counsel’s recent memorandum on FERPA.

Workload

After several sessions of diligent work at the bargaining table, the parties finally reached a TA on the issue of Workload. The parties’ discussion on this topic was productive and detailed, and the union expressed hope that the university will appreciate the union’s “significant movement” on this topic. The university thanked the union for demonstrating its trust in the university bargaining committee and indicated that the bargaining team would work hard to keep that trust.

The final version of this article assures the union that supervisors will consider the academic obligations of graduate students when assigning bargaining unit work. It also affirms that appointment duties shall not exceed 20 hours per week, averaging no more than 15 hours per week. Hours beyond these limits “must primarily benefit the degree progress of the employee.”

The Workload provision also establishes regular work hours, but recognizes that some bargaining unit obligations (including, but not limited to, essential laboratory responsibilities) may necessarily fall outside of these hours.

Union Rights

During the bargaining session, the union also offered a counterproposal on Union Rights. All of the union’s proposed changes concern union business leave. Specifically, the union asks that “up to twenty (20) employees” be granted leave from work “upon two (2) weeks’ notice” to attend “any union convention or regional conference meeting.”

The union insists that this proposal is not intended to be a loophole in the contract or an “indefinite vacation.” Instead, the union’s desire is to have a “certain number of union employees attend union conferences.” The university will respond to this proposal in detail at a future session.

Email sent to faculty on September 4, 2024:

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

Cornell University is committed to supporting the education and well-being of our graduate students, who play crucial roles in the university’s education, research, and outreach missions. In an election held November 6-8, 2023, eligible graduate assistants voted to approve the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. The members of the bargaining unit are graduate students with titles of teaching assistant (TA), graduate research assistant (GRA), research assistant (RA), and graduate assistant (GA) at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses; others outside of these specific titles are not part of the bargaining unit. The university aims to negotiate a balanced and fair collective bargaining agreement that positions Cornell for continued excellence in graduate education and has been bargaining in earnest. Throughout this process, Cornell is committed to being a place where students can do their best work and where they feel that they’re being heard. We will continue to support our students and work to ensure that all students have a voice in this process.

Despite best intentions on both sides, graduate student contract negotiations at peer universities have not always gone smoothly. Strikes have occurred at several of these institutions, where they have been markedly disruptive to research and classes. We therefore want to take this opportunity to provide information that may be helpful as you prepare for that potential activity.

At the outset, we wish to remind you of the fact that the National Labor Relations Act provides legal protection for individuals who participate in a strike or work stoppage. In the event of a graduate assistant work stoppage or strike activity on campus, faculty should not inquire with students regarding their participation or seek to influence their decision to participate or not participate. It is the right of individual graduate assistants to determine whether or not they choose to participate.

Taking some steps early in the semester could help to manage the impact of disruptions in the teaching environment and in research environments and activities.

Teaching and Learning Continuity Planning: Here are some suggestions from the Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI) for ensuring continuity when faced with unexpected disruptions:

• Ensure that the instructor of record has continuous access to student grades from the beginning of the semester and throughout. We recommend that faculty:
• Use the Canvas Gradebook to track student grades throughout the semester, so that TAs can work on assigned grading while ensuring everyone with an instructor or admin role in the course can access the grades.
• Consider using Gradescope to track grades. If this tool is set up through Canvas, the instructor or a course admin would have access to the grades across multiple sections of a course.
• If you have questions about how best to set up grading, please check out these FAQs or reach out to CTI for a consultation.
• If possible, reduce the need for students to turn in hard copies of their completed work to ensure access to their work and lessen the risk of lost work. We recommend:
• Having students submit all digital assignments through Canvas.
• Scanning hard-copy assignments and uploading to Canvas or Gradescope.
• Consider adding a department administrator to all Canvas course sites, for ease of access to grades and Canvas functionalities should the instructor of record become unavailable.
• Consider spreading grading and assignments more evenly throughout the term, rather than in larger end-of-semester concentrations. Having more assignments spread over the term creates more possibilities for making adjustments. Note that this may have important benefits for balancing both student and instructor stress and workload as well.

These and other recommendations for preparing for, communicating, and adjusting during periods of disruption can be found on the CTI website.

Research Continuity Planning: Here are some suggestions from the Office of the Vice President for Research & Innovation (OVPRI) for maintaining research continuity when faced with unexpected disruptions:

• Review the roles that your graduate student advisees (often referred to as research group members or mentees) play in the weekly activities of your group for the semester. While each research group and graduate student research thesis plan is different, here you are identifying spots to be mindful of as if the student advisee were absent from virtual communication or physical presence due to an unexpected life circumstance.
• Preparea plan, considering a couple scenarios.
• Many are practiced at this support of our students and research continuity for groups or projects. In fact, some managed similar circumstances during pandemic quarantine guidance, and kept shared “if/then” plans if someone had to be out for a week unexpectedly. Others are newer to Cornell and research group leadership.
• Best practice for research continuity is developing shared plans that the research group leader knows and communicates to the rest of their group members. In the event of a strike, it is possible several students in the same group could be out at the same time, so your plans should reflect that scenario.
• Imagine beyond your typical lab or office boundaries. If your graduate student advisees conduct research activities that include human subjects, animals in research, or specialized equipment under your direct management or in shared facilities, different considerations apply. OVPRI is here to help as you think through these possibilities, including the Office of Research Integrity and Assurance (ORIA), which supports IRB, IACUC, and related research protocols and practices. It may be more or less obvious to you as a research group leader how your advisees’ research activities include Cornell staff colleagues whose roles include continued service during campus or global disruptions. ORIA colleagues can help clarify these matters to help with your planning.
• If you would like feedback on your scenario planning, it can help to discuss with your department and field colleagues who may be practiced in such research adaptations. There is often an “if/then” shorthand among those whose research activities and locations are similar. OVPRI will also hold office hours in September for those faculty seeking additional advice; reach out by email to your faculty colleagues in OVPRIto consult sooner than that.
• Reviseas appropriate. Again, from collective experience in pandemic disruptions to research, research leaders will adapt as circumstances change. Best practices for the faculty research group leader include keeping your current plan handy and accessible and shared with others in your research team.
• Reach out to your grant and contract officer specifically or to OVPRI more generally if external research funders (e.g., federal sponsoring agency program directors) of your research projects or programs contact you. As in a pandemic disruption, sponsors may be curious or formally request updates on research project and budget impact. OVPRI will field these questions as needed to enable timely and accurate responses for Cornell and to enable your clearer focus on your research group members and activities.

Thank you for helping to ensure the university will be able to continue progress toward our missions of education and research this semester.

Sincerely,

Kathryn J. Boor
Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Graduate Education

Lisa Nishii
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Vice Provost for Enrollment

Steven Jackson
Vice Provost for Academic Innovation

Krystyn J. Van Vliet
Vice President for Research & Innovation

John Siliciano
Provost

Email update sent to faculty on September 4, 2024:

Executive Summary of Session 10

The August 8 bargaining session dealt largely with Disability Accommodations, specifically the process Student Disability Services (SDS) follows for considering such requests from TAs and GRAs. The bargaining teams also discussed SDS requests for disability documentation. Cornell’s position is that formal documentation can sometimes be bypassed, but in complex cases, documentation may be required to support an accommodation request.

The parties also discussed the terms of the Health and Safety article, including language proposed by the university affirming that laboratory safety is a shared responsibility.

Finally, the bargaining teams discussed the union’s latest counterproposal on Workload, which proposed that hours beyond the 15 hours per week average “must exclusively benefit the degree progress of the Employee.” The union alleges that graduate students are improperly assigned duties outside of their assistantships that do not relate to their academic pursuits, and the union’s counterproposal reflects these concerns.

Although the parties did not reach any Tentative Agreements (TAs) during this bargaining session, the parties made significant progress on several important issues.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The bargaining teams have been working diligently on the article addressing Disability Accommodations, a facet of the contract that will have a direct impact on faculty who supervise TAs or GRAs.

The Americans with Disabilities Act provides for accommodations that “level the playing field.” Importantly, accommodations do not reduce expectations for learning. For graduate assistants who request an accommodation, the process involves several steps: the student initiates the request, Student Disability Services (SDS) evaluates the medical or disability status of the student and the requested accommodation, and the academic unit or advisor determines if the request is reasonable or if it fundamentally alters academic standards or essential functions of an assistantship.

During the bargaining session, the Cornell team pointed out that while formal documentation of a disability can sometimes be bypassed, SDS should have the authority to require it, especially for complex accommodation requests. It’s crucial for students to understand that not all accommodations can be approved as requested, particularly if they change the nature of an assistant’s duties rather than providing alternative means to achieve the same outcomes. Both the university and the union agreed that the SDS process should be expedited, but students are encouraged to make their accommodation requests well in advance. Faculty often report that graduate students only begin the SDS process after they are already struggling, so accommodations should ideally be implemented early in the program or as soon as the medical or disability condition is identified.

August 8, 2024 Bargaining Session Summary

Interim Student Disability Services (SDS) Director Beth Parrott opened the bargaining session by reading a prepared statement on SDS. Over 400 graduate students receive the assistance of SDS each year. Ms. Parrott provided examples of accommodations coordinated through SDS, including delayed qualifying exams (among other examples). Her statement emphasized that medical documentation is not a prerequisite for engaging with the office.

Disability Accommodations

Following Ms. Parrott’s introduction, a Cornell team member explained the university’s counterproposal on Accommodations, noting specific instances where the university accepted union language. The university’s proposal makes clear that requests for accommodations may be submitted without medical documentation, but the university reserves the right to request medical documentation when necessary to support a requested accommodation.

The union sought clarification on university language indicating that “the university’s ability to review, respond to and implement requests for accommodation in a timely manner is in part dependent on when the bargaining unit member submits their application to SDS.” Ms. Parrott explained that the timing of a student’s request may impact the implementation timeline. For example, if a student submits an accommodation request for the fall semester by February, that timeline will look different than a student who submits the same request shortly before the semester begins.

A union member complained that SDS is “more willing” to grant accommodations based on coursework than appointment-related work and asserted that union members have issues obtaining accommodations for A exams. Ms. Parrott corrected this assumption, noting that the university can, and does, grant accommodations for these exams.

As part of the parties’ ongoing discussion on Accommodations, the university walked through the accommodation process with the union in detail. The union asserted that there are three important points in the Accommodations timeline: (1) the initiation of the review, (2) the determination, and (3) the implementation of the accommodation. A university bargaining team member observed that an important time point was omitted from the union’s timeline, and that time point is the member’s initial submission to SDS. The timeliness of the initial submission is crucial. If a bargaining unit member fails to file an accommodation request until the day before the semester begins, it is not reasonable to expect the university to render a decision and implement the accommodation the next day.

Notably, the university’s counterproposal on Accommodations confirms that “the nature of an appointment-related accommodation may differ from an academic accommodation.” This remains an important distinction for the university.

Central to the parties’ ongoing discussion of Accommodations is the importance of parity across the university community on this (and other) policy issues. The union remains adamant that it “will not agree” to tie contract language to university policy, which the union asserts “can change at any time.”

Health and Safety

The university introduced its counterproposal on Health and Safety. The university’s proposal affirms that lab safety is a collective, community responsibility and states that the “university and the union recognize that laboratory safety is the responsibility of everyone in the lab.”

In response to the university’s proposal, a union member sought changes to the Field Safety section, and another union team member interjected to seek clarification on the specifics of Workers’ Compensation under Cornell policy. The university team agreed to provide the requested policy information to the union.

As part of ongoing negotiations over Health and Safety, the Union continues to bargain for the inclusion of “endemic disease” in the Public Safety section. In doing so, the union cited the impact of COVID-19 spikes on face-to-face lab work. The union also proposed language stating that no employee “shall be required to undertake field work they reasonably consider unsafe as a condition of an ongoing appointment.”

Management Rights

The university reintroduced its previously proposed Management Rights language, noting that this proposal is of critical importance to the university.

Workload

During the bargaining session, the union introduced another counterproposal on Workload. The union’s latest counterproposal states that hours beyond the fifteen (15) work week average “must exclusively benefit the degree progress of the Employee.” The union claims that graduate students are frequently assigned to “side projects” unrelated to their thesis.

The Cornell team sought clarification on these allegations, asking whether these purported “side projects” have any relationship to the advisor’s funding or provide other educational benefits to the student (such as pedagogical training).

The union also raised other concerns pertaining to Workload, including complaints that students have been assigned to teach at the same time as their desired coursework. The union argues that such assignments delay degree progress, as students generally must prioritize their teaching assignment. The Cornell team agreed to consider the union’s counterproposal in caucus.

A university team member asked the union whether it would consider the following language on regular work hours: Regular work hours are typically between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The union agreed to consider this alternative proposal.

Email update sent to faculty on August 7, 2024:

Executive Summary of Sessions 8 and 9

The Cornell bargaining team has developed a bargaining tracker with current versions of all articles under negotiation.

The bargaining teams covered a lot of ground in the past two sessions, formalizing agreements on International Employee Rights, Appointment Duties and Scope of Work, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOA). The teams are also close to an agreement on Bargaining Unit Information.

The parties discussed the distinction between employment and academics for members of the bargaining unit, which continues to be a point of contention. The university is willing to bargain over the effects that disciplinary decisions have on graduate assistants’ employment, but Cornell and its faculty must maintain authority to make academic judgements without interference from the union. The teams discussed the processes by which students may be dismissed from Cornell for academic reasons, which are distinct from the performance of their assistantship responsibilities.

The union presented a counterproposal on Academic Freedom that would give teaching assistants full authority over teaching material and methods without supervisor oversight and gives the union the ability to “assemble or protest peacefully” without any time, place, or manner restrictions. The union has also presented a counterproposal on Appointment Security that introduces a new special committee designed to provide graduate assistants in danger of failing academically with explicit guidelines for maintaining good academic standing. Cornell will present counterproposals for both in future sessions.

The Cornell bargaining team has developed a bargaining tracker with current versions of all articles under negotiation. Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

The bargaining teams have reached a tentative agreement on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The development provides clarity on which university policies must be subject to bargaining with the UE and how the university should engage with the union when discipline impacts a graduate assistant’s employment.

The MOA signed by Cornell and the UE establishes that, during the collective bargaining process, the university has the right to enforce policies that were established before July 14, 2024. Going forward, the university is required to bargain with the UE on any policy changes or new policies that might impact the terms and conditions of employment for graduate assistants. Cornell retains the right to enforce and update university policy consistent with applicable laws.

The MOA also provides clarity around how the university and the union will engage when policies have an impact on a graduate assistant’s employment. Enforcing existing university policies may lead to consequences for a graduate assistant that impact their employment when, for example, a student’s access to university libraries or other resources is restricted or they are de-enrolled. According to the MOA, in such cases, Cornell agrees to bargain with the union over the effects of these policies on a graduate assistant’s employment, but not on the decision itself. The policies and decisions will apply, so long as enforcement is consistent with Cornell’s past practices. This distinction is important, as it enables the university to continue to administer policies to protect students, faculty, and staff, preserve the integrity of the graduate school experience, and allow the proper functioning of the university.

July 18, 2024 Bargaining Session Summary

A union representative opened the bargaining session by introducing the union’s counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information. The union continues to demand certain categories of non-directory student information from the university, including permanent and local mailing addresses, office/lab location, and employing department or program. The university’s spokesperson noted that the parties are moving closer together on this provision, promising that the university would consider the union’s proposal at caucus.

At this point, the university circulated several counterproposals to the union. The university’s proposals—titled the “Academic Distinction Package”— included No Strike No Lockout, Management Rights, Discipline and Discharge, Workload, Appointment Security, and Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. While introducing the proposals, the university’s spokesperson praised the parties’ collegial working relationship and acknowledged that the parties must contend with a key philosophical difference: the academic/employment distinction. The university’s spokesperson emphasized that the introduction of these proposals does not mean the university is unwilling to discuss the topic, nor does the university wish to sour the productive working relationship between the parties.

The union spokesperson asked for clarification and examples of the academic/employment distinction. The university spokesperson pointed to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as an example, noting that the university must retain the right to enforce and update university policy consistent with applicable law. The university is willing, however, to bargain over the effects of disciplinary decisions that impact bargaining unit members.

The university spokesperson introduced each counterproposal in the Academic Distinction Package. He explained that the No Strike No Lockout provision is intended to provide assurance and security to both parties. He noted that the university hopes the union will consider the university’s Management Rights proposal, which was rejected outright by the union during a previous bargaining session.

Next, the university spokesperson introduced the Workload proposal, noting that the UE agreed to similar language at MIT. The university spokesperson noted that the proposal complies with federal immigration law and emphasized that the 20-hour cap on university service should not be construed as imposing a limit on the amount or type of academic effort necessary for a bargaining unit member’s satisfactory degree progress. The university spokesperson explained that it is necessary for unit members and their supervisors to work together to ensure that work gets done and the cap is not exceeded. With regard to mandatory meetings, the university deleted union-proposed language that would have required PIs to make a ”good faith effort” to provide a remote option to unit members unable to attend meetings in-person.

Next, the university addressed its Appointment Security proposal. In doing so, the university thanked the union for the student testimonials provided at the previous bargaining session. The university spokesperson stated that the testimonials help the university understand the students’ “side of the street.” The university spokesperson observed, however, that while some student struggles may be attributed to poor mentorship, the university does not believe this is always the case.

A member of the union bargaining team asked the university to explain how it distinguishes between poor mentorship/environment and “poor academic chops.” A university representative noted that there are processes and standards designed to ensure that the evaluation of graduate students is fair and equitable. Multiple faculty members are involved in transitional funding determinations, and those faculty members are capable of evaluating the student’s progress and potential path to a degree. The Cornell team member noted that there are rare, but challenging, instances where students fail out of academic programs, including cases where graduate students left campus and abandoned their academic and teaching responsibilities.

At this point, the union team member inquired about the appeals process and its impact on international students. Specifically, they asked how the university handles cases where the student’s presence in the U.S. is contingent on their funding. The Cornell team member noted that some students seek and obtain temporary funding, but others take a leave of absence while maintaining contact with their advisor (or, alternatively, while seeking a new advisor). Some students self-fund during this period while getting “back on track.” The Cornell team member noted, however, that non-failing students do receive transitional funding. This is true of both domestic and international graduate students. The Cornell team member further explained that students also have the option of taking out student loans, but under Title IV, students must be in good academic standing to do so. The government will not fund students in poor academic standing.

The university spokesperson noted that the university’s proposal contains new language indicating that enrolled graduate students receiving transitional funding “will retain all applicable rights and responsibilities of any other enrolled student, including access to student housing.” The university hopes that this update addresses the union’s housing questions and concerns.

Finally, the university spokesperson detailed the university’s Academic Freedom proposal, which emphasizes that employees have the right to express themselves peacefully so long as those activities are consistent with the No Strike No Lockout provision and applicable university policy and law.

The union team member conveyed the union’s “disappointment” that the university did not include a counterproposal on International Employee Rights. The university assured the union that it is working on this counterproposal and would be able to provide the counter in the near term.

At this point, the parties broke for their first caucus, which was extended multiple times by the union. The caucus ultimately continued through the lunch hour.

Upon returning from this lengthy caucus, the parties discussed future bargaining dates. The university offered four September/October dates to the union for consideration.

Following the discussion of Fall 2024 bargaining dates, a union team member introduced the union’s single counterproposal on Appointment Security. The union deleted university language rendering transitional funding contingent on good academic standing, noting that the union proposes a separate process to address this issue. The union’s alternative proposal involves a Special Committee designed to “issue explicit, written, and reasonable guidelines to the Employee for maintaining good academic standing.”

At this point, Vice Provost for International Affairs Wendy Wolford responded to recent international student testimonials. Wolford acknowledged the innate challenges of the U.S. immigration system and the unique struggles of international graduate students. Wolford assured the union that the International Services Office (ISO) is fully staffed, with several full-time immigration advisors and a director who has decades of experience in the field. The ISO is committed to a 1-day turnaround for urgent requests and a 3-day turnaround for other queries. During busy periods, the ISO directs urgent student requests to its 24/7 hotline. Wolford explained that the ISO provides extensive tax information on its website, offers tax software (Sprintax) at no cost to students, and reminds students about their tax obligations via email each year, beginning in the month of January.

Wolford noted that the ISO team offers an orientation program to international students, in addition to other programs and workshops. She explained that the ISO also issues a monthly newsletter with additional opportunities for advisement. Although the ISO offers a wide range of services and programs to international graduate students, Wolford clarified that it is simply not feasible for ISO to reach out to every single student individually to check in on them.

Wolford clarified that, contrary to recent testimonials, local (and national) banks do allow students to open bank accounts without a social security number (SSN). Wolford also noted that concerns about the International Teaching Assistant Program (ITAP) language assessment have been heard, and significant changes to the ITAP process have already been implemented. Therefore, the 2020 survey results repeatedly cited by union representatives are outdated.

Wolford assured the union that while ISO staff may seem “nit-picky,” the alternative (i.e., carelessness or a lack of detail by ISO staff) would be far worse. ISO staff is detail-oriented because their goal is to avoid immigration complications.

At this point, the university spokesperson introduced the university’s counterproposal on International Employee Rights. The university’s proposal includes language indicating that the ISO will publicize its programming through existing channels (newsletters, listservs, and websites), and the union shall inform ISO of the appropriate union representative to be added to these listservs. The university agreed to union-proposed language regarding international student orientation, but explained that the university cannot provide the orientation agenda thirty days prior to orientation. Instead, the university can provide that information ten days in advance.

With regard to Undocumented and DACA Employee Rights, the university accepted union-proposed language indicating that “[e]xcept where required by federal law, the university shall not require disclosure of immigration status as a condition for employment or demand proof of citizenship from Employees.” The university rejected union-proposed language that would have required the university to refrain from providing consent to immigration enforcement agents. The university also rejected union language that would have required the university to promise that members of the bargaining unit would not be held or arrested by Cornell Police on the basis of immigration status alone.

Following discussion of the International Employee proposals, the parties took a second caucus. Like the first caucus, the second caucus was subsequently extended by the union. Upon returning to the table, the university thanked the union for its efforts on the Appointment Security provision, but did not put forth any additional counterproposals.

The union offered a counterproposal on International Student Rights, which restored union language requiring the ISO to provide certain immigration documents within five business days. The union’s counterproposal also contained language indicating that graduate students may request accommodations if “time spent taking or preparing materials for the International Teaching Assistant Program (ITAP) exam or English as a Second Language (ESL) courses, such as ALS 5780, interferes with an Employee’s primary appointment or degree progress.” Per the union’s proposal, such accommodations “shall not be unreasonably denied.”

Following the union’s counterproposal on International Student Rights, the parties entered a third caucus. After the caucus, the parties exchanged additional counterproposals. The union provided a counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work, and the university provided counterproposals on International Employee Rights and union Rights.

The union’s counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work contained a single, minor deletion. Specifically, the union deleted language referring to the Workload provision, which has not yet been negotiated. The union asked that the parties defer the issue until Workload is negotiated. With this minor change, the parties have reached a Tentative Agreement on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. The parties will revisit the provision at the next bargaining session on July 23 to formalize their agreement.

At this point, the university introduced counterproposals on International Employee Rights and Union Rights. The parties reached a Tentative Agreement on International Employee Rights, as well, following one minor grammatical change. The parties plan to formalize their agreement following a thorough review of the revised language.

At the conclusion of the bargaining session, a union team member confirmed a series of September and October 2024 bargaining dates.

July 23, 2024 Bargaining Session Summary

A union team member opened the bargaining session by inviting the university to walk downstairs with the union at noon to hear directly from Cornell’s graduate students, who planned a rally in front of the building. The union member introduction criticized Cornell’s Academic Distinction proposals and targeted Cornell’s Title IX Office. The union member asserted that the office and its policies are “insufficient” to protect graduate workers.

At this point, the union introduced counterproposals on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Academic Freedom, and Management Rights. Another union team member introduced the union’s counterproposal on Academic Freedom, arguing that the university’s approach to Academic Freedom is “conditional.” The union argued that the only reason the university solicited community feedback on the Expressive Activity Policy was because of “massive backlash” from the community. The union team member claimed that certain departmental policies now prevent students from displaying photos of their pets and families.

The union’s counterproposal on Academic Freedom heavily modifies the university’s proposal, and it reincorporates language that would give graduate students full authority over their “choice of teaching material and methods” (without supervisor oversight). The union’s proposal also gives the union the ability to “assemble or protest peacefully” without any time, place, or manner restrictions.

After the union provided this counterproposal on Academic Freedom, a union representative demanded a university counter on Union Security. The union team member asserted that “no one on this campus will be satisfied with a watered-down union modeled on segregationist policy.” The union team member noted that postdoctoral associates at Weill were able to settle the matter of Union Security “pretty quickly.”

At this point, the university spokesperson circulated the university’s counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information. The university’s proposal offers the following categories of information to the union:

• Name,
• University Email and NetID,
• Phone Number,
• University Assistantship Status,
• Semester of Assistantship,
• Dates of Attendance,
• Enrollment Status, and
• Major Field of Study and College Attended.

The university’s counterproposal also incorporates an exception for students who suppress their directory information pursuant to FERPA.

The union spokesperson interjected, noting an ongoing dispute about the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and whether it trumps FERPA. The union spokesperson noted that the parties will need to work through this issue, but they indicated that the union is willing to discuss it. The union spokesperson also asked about the information available regarding students who suppress their directory information. The university indicated that NetID is likely be the extent of the information available in such cases.

Following a lengthy caucus extended by the union, the parties returned to the table with additional counterproposals. The union opened the discussion by presenting counterproposals on Workload and DACA and Undocumented Student Rights. The union’s counterproposal on Workload contains modifications related to work hours and accommodations.

A union team member introduced the union’s counterproposal on Undocumented and DACA Employee Rights. The union reinserted language indicating that “no members of the bargaining unit shall be held or arrested by Cornell Police on the basis of immigration status alone,” claiming that this language is “consistent” with the university’s existing nondiscrimination policy (Policy 6.4) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. The union insists that they are “not asking the university to violate immigration law.”

At this point, the university circulated copies of the article on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. The parties were already in near agreement on this provision. The university spokesperson clarified and confirmed that this article’s prohibition on “personal” services is designed to protect against advisors asking students to perform personal errands. It does not refer to the performance of lab work. The university’s proposal also included minor changes for internal consistency, which did not alter the substance of the article.

Before breaking for lunch, the university spokesperson declined the union’s invitation to the noon rally. The university spokesperson explained that the university is willing to hear the union’s position at the bargaining table. The parties agreed to return to the table at 1 p.m., but the union subsequently requested two extensions from the university. The caucus ultimately extended through 2:30 p.m.

Following the extended caucus, a union team member provided an update on the union rally. They stated that members in attendance were “very agitated” and “loud” and “will not stand for Cornell using the label ‘academic’ to exert power over them.” The union then confirmed that the parties had reached a tentative agreement on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work.

At this point, the parties exchanged additional counterproposals. The university provided a counterproposal on Workload, and the union provided a counterproposal on union Rights.

A union team member introduced the union’s counterproposal on Union Rights, reiterating that the UE is a rank and file union. The union’s proposal states that bargaining unit members “shall be granted reprieve from work upon two (2) weeks’ notice to attend union conventions and regional conference meetings.”

The university spokesperson introduced the university’s counterproposal on Workload. The university’s proposal clarifies graduate students’ average weekly hours, reinserts examples of bargaining unit work that may fall outside of normal working hours, and clarifies that the substitution policy articulated in Workload is specifically applicable to TAs (as opposed to GRAs or other graduate positions).

The union spokesperson interjected to seek clarity on the work hour expectations applicable to RAs, TAs, and GRAs. The university spokesperson clarified that the university’s proposal does not distinguish between these titles with respect to the 20 hour maximum/15 hour average (although other differences exist). The union spokesperson asked whether any time above the 20-hour maximum is “optional.” The union spokesperson insisted that the union “wants to understand what is required” beyond the 20-hour limit.

The university spokesperson noted that the university’s proposal tracks language that the UE has already agreed to at other universities, and another Cornell team member explained that a mere 15 hours a week of total effort would not be a viable path to a degree (nor would it satisfy J-1 visa requirements). The university team member reiterated the distinction between university service and academic degree progress, which are distinct concepts. The university team member noted that some students attend the university with full funding and never hold a Policy 1.3 appointment, but this does not mean that they put in no time toward degree progress. On the contrary, they have their own research milestones to meet.

Following additional discussion, it appears that the parties are largely in agreement on this point, but they disagree as to how to best convey this in the contract. The university agreed to provide an additional counterproposal on Workload that clarifies this point.

The union spokesperson also objected to the phrase “regular working hours,” and the university team clarified that the university is not wedded to the term “regular” and is willing to consider other terminology (such as “appointed working hours”). The university spokesperson noted that some bargaining unit obligations “necessarily” fall outside of regular working hours, such as animal care, but such tasks are limited.

With regard to the issue of mandatory meetings, the university agreed to minor changes proposed by the union and added language clarifying that supervisors should give “reasonable advance notice” of any mandatory meetings conducted off campus. The union spokesperson interjected once again, pointing to a representative from Cornell Tech and asking about graduate students who are asked to travel between campuses. The university spokesperson explained that traveling between Tech and Ithaca, or between Geneva and Ithaca, would not qualify as traveling on the same campus even though all of these campuses are part of Cornell.

Finally, the university spokesperson clarified the university’s position that the substitution policy is applicable specifically to TAs. The union spokesperson thanked the university for its counterproposals and agreed to review the university’s proposed language.

At this point, the union requested an hour-long caucus. Like the previous two caucuses, this caucus was subsequently extended multiple times by the union, and both parties returned to the table with counters. Upon returning to the table, the union circulated a counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information, and the university circulated a counterproposal on union Rights.

A union team member introduced the union’s counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information, emphasizing that the parties are closing in on an agreement. The union team member noted that it is “very important” that the union receive NetIDs for all students, including students who choose to suppress their directory information pursuant to FERPA.

At this point, the university spokesperson introduced the university’s counterproposal on Union Rights. The university “heard the union’s concerns regarding Union Business” and incorporated revised language that permits bargaining unit members to request part-day leaves for union business without retaliation or loss of pay. The university asserted that longer absences (i.e., full-day or multiple-day leaves for union conferences) should be negotiated separately as part of the Leave provision. The union agreed to consider the university’s proposal.

Before concluding the session, the parties formalized their agreement on International Employee Rights, Appointment Duties and Scope of Work, and the MOA. The MOA formalizes the university’s commitment to effects bargaining.

Email update sent to faculty on July 18, 2024:

Dear Colleagues,

As the graduate student union contract bargaining teams remain hard at work this summer, I wanted to let you know that we’re changing the format of our regular communications on graduate assistant unionization. In addition to a summary of the topics discussed at each bargaining session, I’m asking members of the university leadership and bargaining teams to provide succinct explanations of topics of direct interest to faculty who advise graduate students. Our goal is to add helpful context and clarity as topics directly relevant to your daily interactions with your students become more nuanced and complex.

Sincerely,

Kathryn J. Boor
Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Graduate Education

Executive Summary

The July 9 bargaining session began with several testimonials from bargaining unit members, many of them focused on the importance of transitional funding for students who change advisors during their time at Cornell. The Cornell bargaining team confirmed that transitional funding is important, and that the situations cited by the bargaining unit members illustrate how this funding can help students find new advisors and continue their studies successfully. In cases in which a graduate student is not in good academic standing, transitional funding is generally not provided, except in cases in which a path to good academic standing is clear. The union’s position is that students who are failing academically should be offered a full year of funding, regardless of whether they have an advisor or are making progress toward their degree.

Other bargaining unit members highlighted perceived deficiencies in the services rendered by the International Services Office, citing a lack of support with income tax filing and logistical challenges.

In the second half of the day, the university team and the union presented a series of counterproposals. On Nondiscrimination, the union’s position is that additional protections above and beyond current university policy should be offered to union members. The university team has offered future changes to university policy 6.4 for all students, faculty, and staff to incorporate protections requested by the union.

Of Special Interest to Faculty

From Jason Kahabka, Member of the Cornell bargaining team and Associate Dean of Administration, Graduate School:

While we have made significant progress on a number of provisions, we are now beginning to work through some provisions where we have real philosophical differences. Specifically, we have a disagreement with regard to the authority of the university and its faculty to make academic judgements without interference from the union. The union team insists on a year of guaranteed transitional funding for any student who wishes to change advisors for any reason, even for students who are not in good academic standing. They cite examples of advisors who, they say, have resigned from committees and withdrawn funding for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons.

The university team affirmed that we currently do offer transitional funding when a student needs to change advisors for a variety of reasons, so long as the student is in good standing and/or has a viable path forward to complete their degree. We are willing to formalize our commitment to transitional funding in certain situations in the contract, but we don’t believe extending this funding to any student for any reason as the union insists upon makes sense. For example, providing transitional funding to a student who has failed a Q or A exam, is not making satisfactory research progress, or has failed in their coursework does not serve the interests of either the students or the university. The union rejected this offer and stated that students’ academic problems are usually attributed to poor mentoring, so students must always receive transitional funding if they wish to leave their advisor regardless of demonstration of academic success. It will be important to continue this conversation with focus on the proper role of faculty in evaluating student academic performance, which we hold as a core principle of utmost importance.

In addition, the university has proposed language to clarify that work activities not contributing to the student’s degree progress for all assistantships, including GRAs, should average no more than 15 hours per week. We are trying to build a common understanding that the time a student spends in furtherance of their degree progress is outside the scope of bargaining, but that the collective bargaining agreement should focus on work performed as a service to Cornell.

July 9, 2024 Bargaining Session Summary

Student Testimonials

Union representation at this bargaining session was larger than the previous session. The union invited several new representatives to the bargaining session to give testimonials on bargaining topics. While some of the students delivered testimonials regarding their own experiences, others delivered testimonials on behalf of absent students.

The session opened with a student testimonial on international student workers, who represent half of the bargaining unit. The student reiterated prior demands regarding the International Services Office (ISO) and English language testing requirements (the ITAP). He also introduced testimonials from three additional international graduate students.

Another student provided the first of these testimonials, explaining that the amount of information they received from Cornell was “overwhelming.” The student noted that upon arrival at Cornell, they did not know how to pay taxes or navigate the department. Although they admitted that ISO always answered her emails, they complained that no one “checked in.” They demanded that Cornell provide “proportionate assistance” to help international students acclimate to the culture.

The next graduate student to speak noted the financial and logistical challenges surrounding his move to the United States with their spouse. The student noted that Cornell requires students to apply for advance funding by July 4 and provide a U.S. bank account, which can be an obstacle for international graduate students. They also complained about the “slow turnaround time” of the Office of Global Learning in late May/early June. He asserted that “back and forth” communication with the Office of Global Learning took over a month, forcing the student to come to the United States separately from their spouse (who arrived a month later). They claimed that the office was “nitpicky” about immigration paperwork.”

Another student read a testimonial on behalf of an absent international student. That student compared Cornell’s international services against those of UCLA, where the student completed their undergraduate studies. The student complained that ISO’s website is unhelpful and asserted that necessary information is “scattered across” multiple Cornell websites. This student paid for an unnecessary third-party document translation because they allegedly did not receive necessary guidance from the ISO in time. This student claimed that ISO is “insufficient for the needs of graduate workers” and asked Cornell to invest in the ISO because “it is currently not doing enough.”

Another student testimonial on transitional funding followed. This student claimed that “abusive” advisors force graduate students to leave the institution or proceed without funding. The student asserted that toxic advisors “can arbitrarily decide the fate of graduate workers” without consequences.

Next, a student shared a testimonial about an “isolating” experience in their first lab at Cornell. The student indicated that other lab members were hesitant to teach them necessary techniques or guide them to necessary equipment, resulting in the student feeling “further isolated” as a black first-generation student. The student’s advisor offered assistance and then five months of funding to rotate through other labs and find a better “fit,” where the student now mentors other students and prepares first-author papers. The student emphasized that transitional funding is “essential” to graduate students like him, who rely on Principal Investigator (PI) support for their transitions.

Another graduate student complained about an abusive advisor who “humiliated” students with tough questions during presentations, expected them to work weekends, and discouraged them from taking time away from the lab. The student became depressed and anxious, and the mental health of their lab mates deteriorated. The student claims that they were denied funding for the following year for failing to apply for a grant that was “unavailable” due to COVID, at which point the student decided to leave the “toxic” lab. The student noted that they were “lucky enough” to have a DGS who supported this process and help them find a new lab.

At this point, a student read a testimonial on behalf of a former student who could not attend today’s session because the former student’s “Cornell Health insurance was taken away” After they left Cornell with a terminal master’s degree. This student resigned from their teaching assistantship due to a conflict with their advisor, and the advisor ultimately resigned from the special committee and encouraged a terminal MS degree. The former student claims that they “decided to leave” Cornell after the university closed their complaint against the advisor “without an investigation.” (Note: Alumni and non-students are not entitled to Cornell Health benefits.)

A student delivered another testimonial on transitional funding. The student says they developed and tested a prototype “with their own equipment and materials” based on an alleged agreement with the PIs regarding additional funding. This cost the student $10,000 of their own money, and the funding promise was not upheld. When the student subsequently sought patent protection, the PIs demanded that the student take the student’s “name off of everything.” The Center for Technology intervened and informed the student that this information was incorrect and the student secured the patent rights. The student was forced to join a new research group and establish a new committee. The student claims that his new advisor “cried” upon learning the story.

In the next student testimonial, the student claimed that they were subject to “unreasonable working conditions,” “berated” by their advisor, and forced to take inapplicable courses that did not support the student’s research. The student also claimed that they were ultimately encouraged to apply elsewhere but wanted to stay at Cornell to complete their degree. The student ultimately found a new advisor. The student claimed that transitional funding helps students in these situations, who need to find new advisors and want to stay in the Cornell community.

A student then delivered a testimonial on behalf of an absent student. The absent student was a TA who cancelled class on behalf of the global strike in solidarity with Palestine, and asked their students to write a reflection paper on systems of power and oppression. The class cancellation resulted in a number of parent complaints, and this student claims that they were “doxxed” by these individuals when their email address was published online. This student claimed that their political beliefs are “rooted” in their scholarship.

Finally, a student summarized these testimonials, claiming that discrimination is often a “driving force” behind the need for transitional funding. This student stated that graduate workers face discrimination and harassment based on race, sex, shared ancestry, disability, socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and other grounds. The student asserted that “no graduate worker should feel unsafe at work for any reason,” and claimed that current university policies (including Policy 6.4) are “insufficient.”

Following a caucus of slightly over one hour, the university responded to the student testimonials, thanking the students for their efforts and noting the university’s intention to provide counterproposals on several topics. The university explained that it would provide a counterproposal on international student issues at a future session.

Transitional Funding

The university team emphasized that it fully supports the concept of transitional funding. The university noted that, in the instance of policy violations (i.e., a violation of the discrimination policy by an advisor), the university fully supports the use of such funding. But the university noted that there are times when students fail to meet academic standards and do not have a feasible path to a degree. Where the university can substantiate an actionable issue between an advisor and an assistantship holder, the university wants to provide transitional funding, but it needs a way to distinguish between those circumstances and circumstances where there is a failure to make academic progress.

At this point, a university bargaining team representative provided the union with a series of concrete examples. The Cornell team member noted that there is a strong commitment  for the use of transitional funding (where appropriate), and noted that the union testimonials offered several examples where transitional funding was used successfully. When advisors leave for other universities and their students stay at Cornell, there is no ambiguity around the provision of transitional funding: The university provides it. The university is deeply committed to funding these students. Another clear-cut situation where transitional funding is provided is when an advisor becomes sick and can no longer advise the student. The university works with the relevant department to ensure funding for these students. Where there is an incident of documented policy violations or bias, the university is committed to protecting those students from abusive relationships, and it will work with the affected students to provide funding, find new advisors, and extend deadlines. All of these processes already exist, and the university is committed to formalizing these processes by contract.

But, the Cornell team member noted, there are areas in which the university needs union engagement, specifically cases where there are issues of academic standing. As an undergraduate, performance is easily quantified by GPA, and there are various processes to address poor academic progress. Graduate work operates differently. Given the nature of a research degree, graduate students are generally not taking a significant number of courses after their first or second year. When graduate students are not making academic progress, there is an assessment of root cause: is the student not prepared to be successful at Cornell for other reasons? Progress reports and other written correspondence oftentimes provide insights into this question, showing that an advisor offered encouragement and constructive feedback, but student progress was simply not sufficient.

There are three formal ways that a graduate advisor can signal that a graduate student’s work is insufficient outside of informal, day-to-day feedback: Those ways are (1) the annual student progress review, (2) exam failure, and (3) chair resignation. The university has limited resources, and it would not be appropriate for the university to support students who are failing or not prepared to succeed academically. The Cornell team member noted that the university and union need to work together to find a workable way of distinguishing between serious academic issues and situations that legitimately require transitional funding. The Cornell team member asked the union representatives to consider scenarios in their own labs and departments in which a colleague continues to perform poorly despite guidance and constructive feedback.

The union spokesperson responded forcefully to this explanation, asking the university to explain how it evaluates mentors and stating that it would “not be ethical” for the union to give examples of students who are not performing well.

The Cornell team member responded to this inquiry, and the university spokesperson explained that the parties need to work together to find “guardrails” that balance the union and university’s respective concerns regarding transitional funding. The university spokesperson stated that the university is not discouraged and emphasized that the conversation between the parties should continue.

At this point, the Cornell team member noted that there should be no stigma in shifting advisors, especially before the A exam.  That is fully allowed by policy now. In some departments, starting with a temporary advisor is normal, and work can be done to minimize the stigma. The focus on transitional funding may be particularly applicable in STEM fields where students are funded on their advisor’s grant, but it is important to put this concept in context. Many students can, and do, switch advisors, and there is generally no disruption in funding at all.

University Counterproposals

At this point, the university circulated its counterproposals on various topics, including Nondiscrimination, Appointment Duties and Scope of Work, Health and Safety, and Bargaining Unit Information. The university noted that the parties have agreed to a new method for color-coding edits to their respective proposals.

The university explained that its counterproposal on Nondiscrimination, suggesting that the best option would be to focus on Policy 6.4 that already provides extensive protections and could be expanded.  The proposal specifically accounts for future changes and modifications to university policy. The union representatives laughed and retorted that this would allow the university to “unilaterally change policy without bargaining.” The university responded that both parties need to operate with a degree of trust and emphasized that Policy 6.4 applies across the university. The university asked that the parties “put a pin” in the Nondiscrimination proposals at this time while awaiting updates to Policy 6.4 and noted that university bargaining team members do not have complete control over that process.

Next, the university walked through its counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. The parties are near agreement on this provision. The additions proposed by the university are minor and concern lab community tasks that may be required of bargaining unit members toward completion of their degrees. One union representative interjected to note that international students cannot work more than 20 hours a week, and asked how the university’s proposal accommodates this visa requirement. The university spokesperson reiterated the distinction between non-degree-related service work and a student’s own dissertation progress. Nothing in the proposal is intended to violate labor law. A Cornell bargaining team member added that the university must certify that all visa-holding full-time students are enrolled in 12 credit hours (i.e., 36 hours) of academic work per week, and this proposal ensures that no more than 20 hours are designated as service work. In this way, the university’s counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work provides more clarity to graduate students, not less.

Next, the university spokesperson introduced the university’s Health and Safety proposal. The university spokesperson reiterated that graduate assistants wear two hats—student and employee— and noted that this counterproposal was drafted to specifically address Health and Safety as it pertains to students while “wearing their employee hat.” The university emphasized that it does not want students or employees in physically or mentally unsafe situations, but noted that individual students cannot be the ones making unilateral determinations of health and safety without involvement of supervisors or EHS. The university’s proposal provides a process by which the university can investigate reported concerns, and it recognizes that laboratory safety is the responsibility of everyone in the lab. The university’s proposal removes union language about field safety because their proposal would require the university to manage environments and facilities that it has no control over.

Finally, the university introduced its counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information. The university believes that providing the union with names and data on all bargaining unit members on a weekly basis would be onerous and unnecessary, but the university is willing to provide this information on a semester-by-semester basis. The directory information listed in the university’s proposal maps on to the registrar’s list of directory information under FERPA. NetID was requested and is part of the email address, so can be provided.

Future Bargaining Sessions

At this point, the union’s spokesperson requested additional bargaining dates for August, and the parties then broke for lunch. The parties initially planned to break for one hour, which the union subsequently extended through 2:00 p.m.

Upon returning from the extended lunch break, the university offered two August dates to the union for additional bargaining: August 8, 2024, and August 20, 2024. The university bargaining team intends to propose additional September and October dates in the near term. The university also requested that the parties end bargaining sessions at 4 p.m. rather than 5 p.m. to accommodate preparation on both sides, while still maintaining adequate time at the bargaining table.

Additional Counterproposals

Following this scheduling discussion, the union circulated its counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. After just a few minutes of discussion, the union requested another lengthy caucus.

Following the caucus, both parties returned to the table with counterproposals. The union circulated a counterproposal on Health & Safety. The union reinserted language stating that employees can refuse to do work under conditions believed to be dangerous. The union emphasized that not every issue can be resolved immediately, and that employees should not be required to work in an area the employee deems to be unsafe.

At this point, the university introduced its counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work. The university asked that the parties defer the duty-specific discussion to Workload, in an effort to reach a tentative agreement (TA) on the provision at the session.

The union then requested another hour-long caucus, after which the union introduced a counterproposal on union Rights. The union asserted that it is “administratively impossible” to deduct pay for union business, and the union indicated that it “will not move on this issue.” Based on these assertions, it appears that the union misunderstood the university’s prior proposal on union Rights. The university sought clarification from the union in regards to the following area of concern: If a unit member is teaching a class, will they schedule their union service around their university service? The union emphasized that graduate student workers are “flexible” workers, and the university agreed to consider this position.

The union then introduced another counterproposal on Appointment Duties and Scope of Work, noting minor changes to the provision. The university agreed to consider the union’s proposal.

Finally, the union offered a counterproposal on nondiscrimination, noting that it “feels wrong” to have to consult the faculty on changes to Policy 6.4 “because faculty are not part of the union, and bargaining is between the union and the university.”

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

The university’s packet of counterproposals included a copy of the university’s counter on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) proposed by the union following the temporary suspension of three graduate students during the encampment. Noting the inclusion of this counterproposal, a union representative asserted that “work still needs to be done” on MOA. The university agreed that there is “distance” between the parties on the MOA, and the university stated that it would likely be ready to discuss the MOA at the next bargaining session.

The Union lead closed the session by confirming the bargaining dates scheduled for August. The university promised that it would provide a counterproposal on Health & Safety at the next bargaining session.

Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on July 3, 2024:

The Cornell collective bargaining committee and the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) committee met for the sixth time on June 18 to discuss employment terms for TAs, GRAs, RAs, and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses. The meeting was productive, with the teams nearing agreements on several articles. The memorandum of agreement was not discussed but will be revisited later.

Grievance procedures: The session opened with the union’s latest counterproposal on grievance procedures. The UE team accepted Cornell’s proposal regarding step 2 grievances, which will be sent to the department chair. The UE team noted that department chairs are often supervisors, so in order to avoid double representation of those individuals in the grievance process, the UE incorporated a conflict provision, which the university did not object to.

Cornell’s modifications to the step 3 grievance procedure build in the option of using designees to ensure timely response to grievances. The university team and the union team reached a tentative agreement on this article.

Union rights: The UE team presented a counterproposal on union rights, stating that it recognizes the responsibility to use Cornell spaces in a responsible manner with respect to posted materials. The university introduced its union rights counterproposal and explained its position on digital displays, noting that digital displays have unique rules with respect to format and accessibility.

On union participation in orientation, the Cornell team believes that the UE should make arrangements for their new member meetings independently or in conjunction with specific departments, explaining that it would be very difficult to coordinate all departments and fields to ensure that their events do not overlap with union programming.

The teams agreed to remove union leave from the union rights provision to revisit at a later date as part of the economic proposals. There remains disagreement on the union business provision, but the parties are close to agreement on all other provisions of union rights.

International employee rights: The UE team introduced a counterproposal on international employee rights with significant edits. The union agreed to delay discussions on work reprieve for immigration proceedings. The UE claims that the International Services Office is understaffed and urged Cornell to ameliorate issues that impede Cornell student access to social security cards.

Appointment notification: The Cornell team circulated a counterproposal on appointment notification, explaining that the insertion of additional information in appointment letters may have the unintended consequence of slowing down the notification process overall. There are structural obstacles that impact the finalization of appointments as well, including the fact that some faculty members are on 10-month rather than 12-month appointments.

The university introduced its edits to the appointment letter provision, noting that Cornell is willing to provide equipment resources and budget in the appointment letter, to the extent that this information is known at the time the letters are issued.

The UE team introduced a counterproposal with changes to the minimum term and employee discretion provision indicating that full-time appointments shall be for a minimum of one year. The Cornell team pointed out that the evolving nature of research means that the activities specified in an appointment letter in July may shift by December or January, making it impossible to guarantee a one-year appointment.

The parties are close to agreement on appointment notification.

Appointment posting: With respect to the union request that all assistantship positions be posted for applications on a central website, the university team noted that for some courses—for example, Italian literature—very few students have the requisite training to be teaching assistants. Therefore, it would not make sense to require a department to post those positions on a central website. Instead, Cornell will encourage, but not require, schools, departments, and programs to post open positions on a central website. The university’s proposal allows schools, departments, and programs to advertise positions elsewhere, if desired. The UE team indicated it is satisfied with most of the university’s changes and relayed only minor edits.

Appointment duties and scope of work: The Cornell team introduced its counterproposal on appointment duties and scope of work and expressed that the parties have reached agreement on all sections of this provision except for Section 2.1 (research positions), which is pending further review and harmonization.

Appointment security: The university team introduced an appointment security counterproposal, which reinserts language noting that transitional funding is not guaranteed for bargaining unit members who are not in good academic standing. The union continues to object to the university’s emphasis on good academic standing.

Appointment duration: Cornell introduced a counterproposal on appointment duration, explaining that if a graduate student declines the appointment offered, the student will not receive any funding or benefits associated with that appointment or reappointment.

The next full-day bargaining session is scheduled for July 9, 2024.

Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on June 24, 2024:

On Thursday, June 6, the Cornell collective bargaining committee met a fifth time with the committee formed by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) over the terms and conditions of employment for TAs, GRAs, RAs, and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses. An overview of previous sessions is available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website.

During the June 6 session, the university and the UE continued to refine the protocols through which they exchange proposals and revisions.

Appointment security: The session began with the UE introducing their counterproposal on appointment security. The union rejected Cornell’s appointment security proposal on “Transitional Funding During Issues Related to Academic Standing” in its entirety, stating that they believe that students who are failing academically are entitled to transitional funding from their advisors or departments. Currently, when a student loses funding because they are not meeting academic expectations, they are typically not offered transitional funding unless there is a very clear path for the student to return to good standing.

Union rights: The UE introduced a counterproposal on union rights, which reinstated the language that gives the union access to digital displays on campus. After a caucus, the university team introduced a counterproposal with language requiring the union to comply with all university policies, procedures, and regulations regarding the use of university facilities on the same terms that apply to all other visitors. The Cornell counterproposal rejected union language indicating that the union would have “sole discretion” over the content of posted materials.

Accommodations: The UE introduced a counterproposal on accommodations with language allowing unit members to bring a union representative to accommodation-related meetings, in addition to a support person.

Nondiscrimination: The university team introduced a counterproposal on nondiscrimination and emphasized that consistency with existing university policy and other collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) at Cornell is crucial. The Cornell team noted that caste is not a protected class under federal, state, or local rules and that the deletion of “caste” from the provision is designed to harmonize CBA language with existing law and policy. The Cornell team stated that the university would not summarily dismiss a complaint of caste discrimination on the sole basis that it is not an explicitly protected status. After a caucus, the UE team submitted a counterproposal that reinstated protections against caste discrimination and protections for political speech.

Grievance procedures: Cornell introduced a counterproposal on grievance procedures, explaining that the 50-day timeline proposed by the union is unusually long. The university also believes that step 3 grievances should be directed to the office of staff and labor relations as opposed to the provost. It is appropriate that work-related grievances be handled through a labor-focused office, rather than the provost, whose purview is largely related to academics.

After a caucus, the UE introduced their counterproposal, and Cornell then introduced another counterproposal based on UE agreements at other institutions. Cornell offered alternative language on funding transparency based on the Johns Hopkins CBA, a 30-day timeline for grievances, and a revised process proposal:

• Step 1 grievances are handled by the union member’s immediate supervisor
• Step 2 grievances are handled by the department chair
• Step 3 grievances are directed to the senior director of staff and labor relations in consultation with the dean of the relevant college and/or the Graduate School

Workload: The UE introduced its latest counterproposal on workload, citing university materials that indicate average workload of 15 hours per week on average. The union’s counterproposal also reinstated language requiring the university to provide transportation to and from off-site meetings.

The next full-day bargaining session was held on June 18, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. An update on the June 18 session will be sent next week.

Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on May 29, 2024:

On Thursday, May 16, the Cornell collective bargaining committee met a fourth time with the committee formed by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) over the terms and conditions of employment for TAs, GRAs, RAs, and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses. An overview of previous sessions is available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website.

The May 16 bargaining session was highly productive, and the union and university teams engaged constructively on a range of issues listed below. The university team introduced Cornell’s counterproposal to the union’s MOA (see May 8, 2024 Bargaining Session) and circulated copies of the university’s proposals on discipline, nondiscrimination, “no strike no lockout”, management rights, grievance procedure, appointments, and disability accommodations.

Discipline and discharge: The Cornell team stated their position that “discipline,” in relation to the union contract, is specific only to graduate students in their roles as assistants. Discipline with respect to academic circumstances needs to be excluded from the contract. We need to be clear that failing a Q or A exam is an academic matter, and not considered within the scope of the contract, for example.

Discrimination: The university team agreed that there should be a strong nondiscrimination provision in the eventual contract, and that existing university policies prohibit discrimination, but the UE proposal introduces new protections (caste, for example). The Cornell team will review the issue further with the goal of having a single comprehensive non-discrimination policy that covers all members of the Cornell community.

No strike no walkout: The Cornell team acknowledged the UE’s no strike no walkout proposal but rejected it and re-proposed its original language. Cornell will not agree to a no lockout provision unless the union promises they will not strike during the life of the contract.

Management rights: Cornell resubmitted the original management rights proposal, as such provisions are ubiquitous and allow the university to remain nimble on day-to-day matters. The university team is committed to ensuring a management rights provision is included in the contract.

Grievance and arbitration processes: The bargaining teams made solid progress on moving the grievance and arbitration processes toward mutual agreement.

Appointment posting: Cornell clarified that most assistantships are rarely posted publicly and it is not feasible to advertise all of these appointments in a single location. Some teaching assistantships can be posted publicly, and Cornell is working on a system to collect these appointment listings in a single location so that students can find opportunities more easily.

Transitional funding: The parties also engaged on the university’s proposal on appointment security and transitional funding. According to Graduate School practices, students are routinely offered transitional funding if there is an interruption in their funding due to the death or departure of their advisor, an interruption in grant funding, or some other unexpected circumstance. On the other hand, when a student loses funding because they are not meeting academic expectations, they are typically not offered transitional funding unless there is a very clear path for the student to return to good standing. The university seeks to retain as much of the union’s language in this proposal as possible while maintaining the distinction between scenarios.

Postings: The university team agreed that the union can post flyers on most bulletin boards so long as they comply with all local posting rules. The university will also agree to allow the union to present during school-wide orientation at the beginning of the fall semester. It was agreed that the union presentation could not be made mandatory.

Union office space: In addition, a union proposal guaranteeing office and meeting space for the union on campus was rejected by the university team, as this is not a usual arrangement. The Cornell team pointed out that the union is free to secure space elsewhere in Ithaca, as other area unions do.

The next full-day bargaining session is scheduled for June 6, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on May 13, 2024:

On Wednesday, May 8, the Cornell collective bargaining committee met a third time with the committee formed by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) over the terms and conditions of employment for TAs, GRAs, RAs, and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses. An overview of the April 16 session is available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website.

The May 8 session was challenging, and emotions were high. A large group of vocal supporters with signs and megaphones gathered outside the building where the meeting was held.

The UE started the session by providing a petition signed by students, faculty, staff, and alumni asking Cornell to overturn temporary suspensions issued against three graduate students as a result of their participation in the encampments on campus and to rescind the interim expressive activities policy. The UE demanded to bargain on these matters. Afterward, the UE asked two of the students who received temporary suspensions to provide testimonials to the management bargaining committee explaining how the temporary suspensions impacted both their roles as students and graduate workers in the bargaining unit.

The Cornell team clarified that the students in question were suspended for violations of the Student Code of Conduct that occurred outside of the context of their assistantships. As such, the university remained firm in its position that it did not and does not have an obligation to bargain with the union over the decision to temporarily suspend the students consistent with the Student Code of Conduct. The university team explained that Cornell has a consistent and established past practice of enforcing the code for the last 60 years and therefore, consistent with current labor law, the university was not and is not obligated to bargain over the decision to issue these temporary suspensions. Instead, violations of the Student Code of Conduct are managed by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) and therefore it would not be appropriate for Cornell’s bargaining team to bargain with the union over the decision to suspend these students. With that being said, the Cornell team explained that it would be willing to bargain with the union over the effects that the suspensions have had on these students’ terms and conditions of employment. To that end, the bargaining committee confirmed that restoring TA access to Canvas could alleviate one of the student’s concerns.

The UE asked for a commitment that the suspended students would not face de-enrollment.  While the university’s team affirmed that is a shared goal, it could not commit that de-enrollment would be taken off the table at a structural level given OSCCS’s process. Notwithstanding this, the university team reiterated that the students have each been informed of a clear path by the OSCCS to avoid de-enrollment by committing to refrain from further Code of Conduct violations.

The UE team proposed a memorandum of aggreement (MOA) regarding a broad swath of university policies impacting working conditions, asking that Cornell not change the working conditions “of any Employee pursuant to any policy, including the Student Code of Conduct,” unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Cornell plans to respond to the proposal in an upcoming session.

The university team then offered four counterproposals to the UE (Appointment Duties, Appointment Security, Training, and Union Rights). These counterproposals are currently under review by the UE.

The UE rejected Cornell’s Management Rights proposal in its entirety, claiming that “inadequate due process” had been given to graduate students. The UE also countered the university’s No Strike, No Lockout proposal.  These topics will continue to be the subject of negotiation.

It is important to note that Cornell and the UE are in the very early stages of negotiating a contract for graduate assistants, a process that may take many months. There will be give and take in this process, but a rejection of any given issue at this stage may still be discussed at a later date, and a mutual agreement will eventually be reached.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for May 16, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Archives of all bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on April 23, 2024:

On Tuesday, April 16, the Cornell collective bargaining committee met a second time with the committee formed by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) over the terms and conditions of employment for TAs, GRAs, RAs, and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses. An overview of the March 25 session is available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website.

In the April 16 meeting, the parties set an aggressive timeline for seven full-day bargaining sessions in May, June, and July, reflecting the university’s commitment to engaging deeply and swiftly on these subjects with union partners.

In addition, the Cornell committee circulated a series of counter-proposals to the UE’s initial list of proposals regarding grievance procedures, union rights, and severability, as well as management proposals on “no strike no lockout”, management rights, terms of agreement, and duration. While circulating these proposals, Cornell noted other collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that exist on campus and explained that Cornell must take these CBAs into account during the bargaining process.

The UE committee held a caucus to review Cornell’s proposals, then requested various policies referenced in the proposals. Cornell agreed to provide copies of those policies. UE also inquired about specific aspects of Cornell’s proposals, including postering and orientation.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for May 8, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

In order to inform faculty about the ways in which unionization is changing graduate education at Cornell, the Office of General Counsel is working in consultation with department chairs and college leaders to develop departmental presentations to be shared at faculty meetings. Look for these events in the coming months.

Archives of bargaining session updates and FAQs are available on the Graduate Student Unionization Update website. If you have additional questions, please email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu. Your questions are helpful in building the list of FAQs.

Email update sent to faculty on March 29, 2024:

On Monday, March 25, a committee of Cornell representatives participated in the first collective bargaining session with a committee formed by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) over the terms and conditions of employment for TAs, GRAs, RAs and GAs at the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses.

At the bargaining session, 20 graduate students spoke about their experiences at Cornell and their proposals for improvements. Discussion also touched on the frequency, mode (in-person or hybrid), and duration of future bargaining sessions.

The UE committee presented a list of proposals representing their initial bargaining position. The next two bargaining sessions will take place on April 16 and May 16.

Please refer to the Graduate Student Unionization Update website for a set of frequently asked questions about graduate assistant unionization and collective bargaining. If you have additional questions, feel free to email them to graduateunionupdate@cornell.edu.