Mediation Tomorrow, Updates, Events & NDH Movement

During Wednesday’s mediation session, the university team presented a revised proposal on arbitration based on Harvard’s recently adopted agreement with its student workers. We expressed our dissatisfaction with the EOAA and with the limitations imposed on seeking third party neutral arbitration in the university’s recent proposal. Nevertheless, we agreed to consider the university’s priorities and return with a counter proposal.

We began our Friday meeting with the university team by decrying the Thursday night email from HR that vaguely threatens to replace striking workers in Spring 2022. The permanent replacement of labor during an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) strike is illegal, and we reminded the university team of this fact. When asked to clarify their threat to terminate employees, or to denounce the implication of termination, the university team reiterated the vague phrasing of the HR email and claimed that the university merely needs to know who will be able to teach so that they can be paid on time.

We understand the purpose of the HR email very well:  to discourage strikers from their legal right to strike by inventing an entirely arbitrary strike deadline and ominously suggesting the withheld employment of those who exercise that right. It is unfortunate that Columbia would rather threaten its employees out of a legal strike than come to the bargaining table in good faith. We should, however, remember that feeble threats like this most recent email are (a) illegal, and (b) a sign that our strike is profoundly disruptive to the university.

After clarifying our position on the HR email, and continuing a discussion from Wednesday’s mediation, we moved on to the issue of childcare funding. With the union first adjusting its proposal by dropping unlimited access to backup care, and the university team responding with incremental additions to the childcare subsidy that cap at $5000 by 2023, some progress was made to find a middle ground. Although the union and university team still disagree on the total subsidy amount and the inclusion of a “stop the clock” provision, we had some productive dialogue on this issue.

Our proposal regarding Non-Discrimination and Harassment (NDH) started off equally productive, with one member of the university legal team even expressing their appreciation for our movement. We presented a new proposal in which all students must go through the EOAA, but will also have the option to appeal to neutral arbitration. After a lengthy caucus, however, the university team returned with less enthusiasm and stated that some of their concerns were still not met. We await and are expecting their counter-proposal on NDH during tomorrow’s session.

In solidarity,

Your bargaining committee