SWC response to disinformation from Columbia University administration
Dear Columbia Faculty and Community,
We are writing to you to address the disinformation contained in recent emails from Provost Mary Boyce to the Columbia community regarding the on-going Student Workers of Columbia strike. We are extremely disappointed that the administration has once again chosen to mischaracterize the current state of negotiations and malign student workers as unreasonable and intransigent – with full knowledge that the union does not have the same level of access to faculty, administrative staff, and students to effectively counter these inaccuracies. Furthermore, we again invite the Provost to attend our bargaining/mediation sessions to better understand the extent of the mischaracterizations made in these emails. So far, Boyce has not attended a single one.
This email is intended to identify and dispel several myths advanced by the University:
Myth 1: Current union leadership does not have the support of the majority of the unit (the “rogue Bargaining Committee” myth)
Myth 2: Strike momentum is low; faculty and students do not support the current strike (the “no one likes the union” myth)
Myth 3: Columbia has made significant concessions at the bargaining table, while the union has made none (the “intransigent workers” myth)
Myth 1: Current union leadership does not have the support of the majority of the unit (the “rogue Bargaining Committee” myth)
During our bargaining sessions and in email communications, the University has positioned current union leadership as ideological extremists who do not truly represent the views of striking workers or the larger unit.
With regards to union democracy, negotiations in spring 2021 were hampered by major divisions between the union’s Bargaining Committee and unit membership. This culminated in a Tentative Agreement being put forth that failed to substantively address the needs of student workers, and which was voted down by the majority of student workers (making us the first student worker union in history to reject a TA). This vote was hard-won, given that all messaging about the TA, as well as the ballot itself, strongly encouraged student workers to vote yes.
In the time since voting down the Tentative Agreement proposed by the University, the Union’s internal organization has been thoroughly reworked to prioritize democratic accountability and transparency:
The end of the current strike will be decided by a democratic vote within the union’s membership. Throughout the strike, the union has held weekly polls asking unit members to vote on whether to end or continue the strike. Since the beginning of the strike, no less than 87% of striking workers have voted each week to continue the strike for another week.
Working Groups, which are open to all rank-and-file unit members, have been accorded a much wider ambit: they are the primary means through which contract proposals and counter-proposals are developed. Parents, student workers failed by EOAA processes, and international students facing unique forms of retaliation are those who ultimately shape the contract that they will have to actually live with.
The aim of these reforms is to constitute a Bargaining Committee that is bottom-up rather than top-down. Stronger democratic processes mean that proposals at the bargaining table reflect the wishes of the rank-and-file rather than the Bargaining Committee alone. We are collectively fighting for a contract that we can enthusiastically ratify.
Myth 2: Strike momentum is low; faculty and students do not support the current strike (the “no one likes the union” myth)
The University has argued that faculty and students are alienated by our strike. The point of a strike is, of course, to disrupt the daily functioning of the University. This very understandably leads to frustration and anger. We dispute the characterization, however, that this frustration and anger is aimed at striking workers rather than at the University’s refusal to accept the union’s reasonable and affordable demands.
Indeed, in a statement sent to President Bollinger and Provost Boyce on Sunday, December 5th (full text at the end of this Bwog article), the Columbia College Student Council lamented the negative impact of the strike on their education and explicitly blamed the University for not delivering on its promises:
“We pay tuition with the expectation of a quality education and a robust campus life. We have received neither. Our grievance here is not with SWC, as it is the sole responsibility of the University to provide this experience for undergraduates.”
Though Boyce received the CCSC’s email before she sent out her own on Monday, she chose to mischaracterize the impact of the strike rather than address the Council’s concerns.
Furthermore, as a growing number of letters in support of the strike from across the University and the city of New York in circulation demonstrate, support for the Union’s demands is widespread:
Compilation of solidarity letters by faculty
Open letter from 382 students in the Mailman School of Public Health
Open letter from numerous student groups at the Law School
Undergrad manifesto in support of the SWC Strike (Spec Op-Ed)
Letter from a parent of a Columbia undergrad to admin
Letter from City Council Member-Elect, Shaun Abreu
Petition against retaliation signed by hundreds of community members + supporters
Even more indications of faculty and student support:
By our conservative (i.e., fully confirmed) estimates, over 128 campus events and seminars have been cancelled in solidarity with the strike.
The SWC is currently helping to move almost 700 students in 33 classes off-campus every week. This number does not include the many classes whose instructors have been able to locate off-campus meeting spaces on their own, or professors who have chosen to teach online.
Exceptionally high turnout at our faculty-led rally yesterday. Video of the picket line here; posts by supportive faculty here, here, and here. Professor Jack Halberstam’s incredible speech on student debt, health care, and the future of the University can be found here.
While it is clear that the Columbia administration does not like the union, there is in fact very little indication that faculty, students, or the majority of student workers share that animus.
We know that some may still disagree with us. In her recent Unionization Update, Provost Boyce cherry-picked a Spec Op-Ed written by a Columbia College student “who was granted anonymity due to potential retaliation”. This article is sadly fraught with inaccuracies, some of which have been addressed in this email. We hope that everyone will be able to see for themselves that the information on the Provost's website (on which the article is based) grossly mischaracterize the terms of CU's offer, that our demands are legitimate and reasonable, and that the unit is taking every measure necessary to ensure that decisions regarding strategy are democratic and participatory. Most importantly, our members are committed to respect differences of opinion and, unlike the University, are committed not to retaliate in any way against those who disapprove of the strike.
A final note regarding strike numbers: While the University has made several statements about the supposedly tiny fraction of workers on strike, they have not mentioned what fraction of workers are on teaching appointments, as opposed to research appointments that are more connected to student workers’ dissertation and academic duties. Among Teaching Assistants and Instructors of Record (student workers running self-designed classes), over 70% of the labour force is on strike. It is also notable that Columbia has constantly reiterated that they genuinely don’t know how many student workers are in the unit, claiming that their administrative system is “too complex” for this calculation.
Myth 3: Columbia has made significant concessions at the bargaining table, while the union has made none (the “intransigeant workers” myth)
There are four core issues on which the Columbia administration and SWC disagree. These are: (1) Compensation, (2) Health Care, (3) Non-Discrimination and Harassment, and (4) Unit Recognition. Our bargaining framework can be found here. Given the University’s insistence that they have made significant moves while the union has made none, we feel compelled to provide a summary of all of the moves that have been made thus far by both parties. These summaries are based on note-taking at bargaining at mediation sessions. We invite the University to clarify if any of these points are factually inaccurate.
Note on (Issue 1) compensation and (Issue 2) healthcare: These two core issues have not been discussed in detail, as Columbia has explicitly said that they will not bargain over compensation until non-compensation articles are resolved. Nonetheless, SWC has made unilateral moves in both areas in order to come to a settlement as soon as possible.
(Issue 1) Compensation
Compensation is and has been a core demand for every member of our unit. No one in our unit makes a living wage commensurate with New York City’s cost of living. Despite this, in our most recent package we offered to Columbia (today, on December 7th), we moved to limit a portion of our wage increase demands to student workers on appointment. In effect, we have lowered our desired increases by 2 percentage points (roughly $800 per worker per year, depending on the specific position), and shifted these increases to a 2% lump sum increase only for student workers on appointment. This move reduces the cost of our compensation demands by nearly $1 million per year.
We have also lowered our ask for hourly-compensated employees from a minimum of $26 to $24 in the first year of the contract, and lowered the increment that this minimum increases each year from $1.50 to $1. (Note that NYU student workers are already guaranteed $26/hour.)
(Issue 2) Healthcare
In spite of the fact that student workers in Masters and undergraduate programs are in dire need of health coverage (especially in GS, where student workers are rarely eligible for parent dependent health coverage, and are more likely to have dependents themselves), we have limited our demand for health coverage, including dental and vision plans, to only PhD students and their dependents.
We have also significantly dropped (by 25%) the demanded total at which Columbia must maintain a static health fund designed for out of pocket expenses for dependents. We have also allowed the University to roll-over remaining funds year-to-year.
We have dropped our demand for any sort of minimum values to the Columbia Health Plan’s deductible and out-of-pocket maximums.
(Issue 3) Non-Discrimination and Harassment, or NDH
Before entering bargaining, SWC has been consistent in our desire for neutral, third-party arbitration: SWC has voiced several concerns about Columbia’s internal EOAA process and has been seeking an alternative procedure to replace EOAA since we started bargaining more than two years ago.
On December 1, Columbia proposed the “Harvard plan” in exchange for cutting all casual and hourly workers out of the bargaining unit – workers certified by the NLRB as part of our unit who have gone on strike to win a contract honoring the ruling.
The arbitration process proposed by Columbia places extreme constraints on the power of the arbitrator, and implements several barriers to case eligibility for arbitration. Under Columbia’s proposal, arbitrators will not be able to investigate or even rule on whether there discrimination or harassment in fact occurred. To quote the University’s proposal: the arbitrator “shall have no power to impose any findings, penalties, or sanctions on the other party or parties from the underlying claim”, “will be asked to avoid an outcome that would make the University and parties repeat the investigatory and adjudication process”, “shall have no power to substitute their judgment for that of the University decision-makers with regard to findings of discrimination or harassment or lack thereof.”
Further, the plan only allows “arbitration” to occur under very specific circumstances. The appeal for arbitration can occur only after the EOAA process concludes, which can take up to a year. It also requires an extremely stringent and subjective standard of proof: that the University’s investigator was biased or had a conflict of interest, and that this affected the outcome of the claim. For all other grounds for arbitration stated in University’s arbitration proposal, including the grounds which the University claims improve on Harvard’s contract, the arbitrator only has the power to refer the issue back to the University if they agree with the grievant’s position.
The plan put forth by Columbia proposes that arbitration (defined as the use of a 3rd party to settle a dispute) may be used to determine whether an EOAA ruling was fair, whereas the SWC has requested arbitration be used to determine whether filed complaints themselves are founded. Although Columbia claims to have made significant moves by offering a form of arbitration, which we do appreciate, the University is still quite far from the type of arbitration that we have been seeking since the beginning of this process.
We believe that these restrictions in Columbia’s plan are a major deterrent to survivors, who will already have been through an extended and grueling process before even being allowed to “apply” to be granted the option of arbitration.
The University has advanced three main arguments at the bargaining table for refusing a neutral, third-party arbitrator (curiously, these arguments have never made it into the Provost’s announcements).
First, the University continues to insist that its opposition to neutral arbitration is entirely rooted in concern for student workers: that they are sparing survivors from a “traumatic” and “adversarial” process. This is despite the fact that the University’s own EOAA process – in which the University investigates itself – already contains a contentious investigatory procedure. Our proposal is designed to offer survivors the option of neutral, third-party arbitration, not to force them to choose it.
Second, the University continues to claim that it is not “appropriate” to engage in arbitration with its “students.” This statement fails to account for the fact that we are both students and workers – which is precisely why we are bargaining our first labor contract (not to mention the fact that we believe students should have access to a neutral arbitrator if they so choose). Our sister union, GSOC-NYU UAW Local 2110, has had neutral, third-party arbitration since 2015 (reaffirmed in their 2021 contract). Like us, GSOC-NYU members are both students and workers. The well-being of our student workers is at the heart of our bargaining efforts, and this drives us to continue seeking the same, reasonable protections which are already granted to GSOC-NYU members.
Finally, the University claims its “hands are tied” by Trump-era Title IX guidance. We do not believe this is accurate, especially given that the NYU contract explicitly provides access to neutral, third-party arbitration for Title IX cases – a provision reaffirmed in NYU’s 2021 contract. The University has not provided any further support for its position.
(Issue 4) Unit Recognition
“Recognition” is an article which affirms the University’s commitment to recognize student workers as student workers and as members of SWC. Although it is not a flashy issue, it is a crucial structural element that underpins the very existence of our union. Student workers at Columbia fought for many years for the right to collectively organize, achieving NLRB-mandated recognition by Columbia in 2016 (and affirmed in 2017).
Columbia has consistently argued that hourly workers who work below 15 hours per week are not recognized under the NLRB ruling, and are thus not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit. Despite these continued claims, the logic supporting them remains baseless. According to the NLRB ruling, Columbia must recognize all student workers who provide instructional or research services. There is no language in the ruling that speaks to hourly minimums or some sort of “hourly worker exceptionalism”.
SWC has responded by cutting out casual workers from many of the economic provisions of our proposal. However, we will not agree to exclude student workers from our unit who are already legally recognized and protected. All student workers at Columbia should be protected in their workplace.
If you have made it to the end of this email, we thank you! Columbia’s misrepresentations are numerous, and we are grateful for your willingness to allow us the opportunity to correct the narrative. In the coming weeks, we invite you to keep up with updates (and receive further antidotes to the University’s disinformation campaign) by signing up for our faculty digest here: https://tinyurl.com/SWCFacultySignUp
In solidarity,
The Student Workers of Columbia
